UMASS/AMHERST  | 


315DbbDD5flS50fi7 


fir"'"' 


!iM  nm' !!?';    i  !i :;'  ■ 

iiiililliiiiiiiliii: 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS 

AGRICULTURAL 

COLLEGE 


Source 


36 


V.  I 


CARD 


PAICPHLETS 


OH 


SOILS 


Volume      1 


43  / 


v,/ 


Atwater,  W.  0.   Co-operatiye  experimenting 
as  a  means  of  studying  the  effects  of 
fertilizers  and  the  feeding  capacities  of 
plants, 

Bowker,  W,  H.  Levi  Stockhridge  and  the 
Stockbridge  principle  of  plant  feeding, 

Bowker,  W,,  H»  The  prohlem  of  fertility  in 
the  middle  West, 

Collingwood,  H*  Y/,   A  full  review*  of 

chemicals  and  clover 

jj 
Curry,  B.  E,  and  Smith,  T.  0.  A  study  of 

soil  potassium. 

Plagg,  C.  0,  Experimental  work  conducted  at 
the  Rhode  Island  Experiment  Station  with 
the  nitrate  of  soda  or  Chile  salt-peter 
as  a  fertilizer  upon  acid  soils. 

Q German  Kali  Works,  Home  mixing  of  fertilizers 

Massey,  ¥,  P*   A  farmer's  experience  with  lime 

Meyers,  W,  S,  The  home  mixing  of  fertilizers 

Palmer,  T,  G,  Indirect  "benefits  of  sugar-beet 
culture. . 

Stevens,  P,  L.  Studies  in  soil  bacteriology, 

1.  Nitrification  in  soils  and  in  solutions  j 

2,  Ammonif ica^i on  in  soils  and  solutions 

Summers,  L»  L   Fixation  of  atmospheric  nitrogeni 

Warner,  I.   The  position  of  lime  in  the  chemistr 
of  the  soil 

Whitney,  M,   Soil  investigations 

V/ood,  R,  S,  The  soil  considered  as  a  separate 
and  distinct  department  of  nature 


X    i  .S,Q(ti^         ,  JUN2-1913 


CO-OPERATIVE  EXPERIMENTING 


AS  A   MEANS.  OF 


STUDYING  THE  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


FEEDING  CAPACITIES  OF  PLANTS. 


By  PEOF.  W.  O.  ATWATER. 


WASHINGTOlvr: 

GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE. 
1882. 


FEKTILIZERS. 


CO-OPERATIVE  EXPERIMENTING 


AS  A  MEANS  OF 


STUDYING  THE  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


FEEDING  CAPACITIES  OF  PLANTS. 


By  PEOF.  W.  O.  ATWATER. 


WASHINGTOT^j 

GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE. 

1882. 


Department  of  Agriculture, 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  27,  1882. 
Sib  :  I  submit  for  your  consideration  the  following  suggestions  with, 
regard  to  plants  and  fertilizers,  wliich  were  laid  before  this  department 
by  Professor  Atwater  at  the  agricultural  convention  held  here  in  January 
last. 

I  consider  it  very  important  that  these  suggestions  should  be  put  to 
a  practical  test,  and  I  shall  feel  under  great  obligations  if  you  will 
establish  a  series  of  experiments  upon  the  plants  and  fertilizers  herein 
enumerated,  and  will  submit  a  report  thereon  to  the  department  with 
as  much  care  and  elaboration  as  you  can  without  interfering  with  your 
duties  or  with  the  work  which  you  have  assigned  yourself. 
Very  respectfully, 

GEO.  B.  LOEIN^G, 
Commissioner  of  Agriculture. 


t  '    V^^i^^^^ 


-(y?-z>C 


^^^^ 


^ 


/L/Z<f^^^l 


I    . 


CO-OPERATIVE  EXPERIMENTING 


MEANS    OE  STUDYING    THE  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS  AND  THE 
FEEDING  CAPACITIES  OF  PLANTS. 


By  Pkof.  W.  O.  Atwater. 


banners,  from  Canada  to  Texas,  are  spending  millions  upon  millions 
of  dollars  every  year  for  guano,  fish  scrap,  ammoniated  superphos- 
l^hates,  nitrate  of  soda,  and  the  like.  Ostensibly,  they  are  buying  the 
fertilizers  at  from  $20  to  1100  \)er  ton.  Actually,  they  are  buyiug  nitro- 
gen at  from  15  to  40  cents  per  pound.  But  need,  the  farmer  spend  so 
much  for  nitrogen?  Or  migbt  he  use  more  with  profit?  These  are 
questions  that  no  professor  of  agriculture  can  answer.  Indeed,  no 
chemist  or,  botanist  to-day  can  so  much  as  tell  him  how  the  different 
plants  he  cultivates  stand  related  to  nitrogen,  for  what  ones  he  must 
buy  it,  and  what  ones  he  may  use  in  his  rotation  to  gather  it  from  na- 
ture's stores  and  furnish  it  to  him  without  money  and  without  price  save 
the  cost  of  tillage. 

The  question  of  the  nitrogen  supply  is  only  one  of  a  great  many  whose 
solution  is  most  urgently  demanded.  We  must  know  how  to  feed  our 
plants,  or  go  without  food  ourselves.  We  need  more  light.  Some  must 
come  from  the  laboratory  and  the  greenhouse ;  some  must  be  sought  in 
the  field. 

Field  experiments  rationally  planned,  carefully  carried  out,  faithfully 
reported,  and  interpreted  wirh  the  aid  of  the  most  advanced  science, 
will  carry  us  far  toward  finding  out  many  of  these  things  which  we  so 
much  want  to  know.  If  along  with  these  we  can  have  proper  studies, 
chemical  and  physical,  of  the  soils  experimented  upon,  analyses  of  the 
plants  produced,  and  in  addition  pot  experiments  whose  conditions  can 
be  definitely  known  and  controlled,  and  especially  if  we  can  work 
together  we  may  hope  for  the  information  we  need. 

Five  years  ago,  while  director  of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Exper- 
iment Station,  I  suggested  some  field  experiments  with  fertilizers  to  be 
carried  out  by  farmers  for  the  purpose  of  studying  the  needs  of  their 
soils  and  the  best  materials  to  supply  them.  The  outgrowth  of  these, 
in  the  form  of  extended  series  of  experiments  during  four  succ(>ssive 
seasons,  has  been  stated  briefly  in  the  American  Agriculturist^  and,  in 
more  detail,  in  the  Eeports  of  the  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture 

3 


for  1877,  1878,  1879,  and  1880.  The  experiments  of  1881  have  not  yet 
been  published  in  detail,  but  a  few  of  the  more  important  results  will 
be  given  herewith. 

With  the  sets  of  experimental  fertilizers  were  sent  blanks  on  which 
any  who  should  choose  were  invited  to  send  rei)orts  of  their  exijeriments. 
Nearly  three  hundred  experiments  have  been  reported.  They  come 
from  colleges,  exi^eriment  stations,  and  individual  farmers  in  all  the 
States  east,  and  from  some  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  from  several  of 
the  British  provinces.  The  quality  of  the  work  as  indicated  by  the  re- 
ports is  most  gratifying. 

The  experiments  have  been  of  two  classes.  The  first,  which  may  be 
called  general  experiments,  are  of  a  simpler  sort,  and  intended  primarily 
for  soil  tests,  involve  the  use  of  eight  or  more  different  kinds  and  mix- 
tures of  fertiliziug  materials  containing  nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and 
potash.  The  second  class,  the  "special  nitrogen  experiments",  have  been 
of  more  complic  ited  character,  and  have  had  for  their  object  the  study  ot 
the  feeding  capacities  of  some  of  our  more  common  cultivated  plants, 
with  special  reference  to  the  nitrogen  supply. 

It  is  to  these  latter  experiments  that  attention  is  especially  invited 
here. 

THE   FEEDING  CAPACITIES   OF   PLANTS. 

The  experiments  we  are  discussing  bring  us  face  to  face  'g^ith  one  of 
the  most  imi)ortant  jjroblems  with  which  agricultural  chemistry  has  to 
deal,  and  at  the  same  time  throw  some  new  light  upon  it-  I  refer  to 
what  may,  perhaps,  be  most  properly  called  the  feeding  capacities  of 
plants,  their  power  of  gathering  their  supplies  of  food  from  soil  and  air, 
and  the  effects  of  the  artificial  supply  of  different  ingredients  of  plant- 
food  upon  their  growth. 

A  vast  deal  of  experience  in  the  laboratory  and  in  the  field  bears  con- 
current testimony  to  the  fact,  though  we  are  still  deplorably  in  the  dark 
as  to  how  or  why  it  is  so,  that  ditferent  kinds  of  plants  have  different 
capacities  for  making  use  of  the  stores  of  food  that  soil  and  air  contain. 
Of  the  ingredients  of  plant  food  in  our  soils,  the  most  important,  because 
the  most  costly,  is  nitrogen.  Leguminous  crops,  like  clover^  do  somehow 
or  other  gather  a  good  supply  of  nitrogen  where  cereals,  such  as  wheat, 
barley,  rye,  and  oats  would  half  starve  for  lack  of  it,  and  this  in  the  face 
of  the  fact  that  leguminous  plants  contain  a  great  deal  of  nitrogen,  and 
cereals  relatively  little.  Hence  a  heavy  nitrogenous  manuring  may  pay 
well  for  wheat  and  be  in  large  j)art  lost  on  clover. 

NEED   OF   MORE   INFORMATION. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  compelled  to  rely  mainly  upon  EuroiDcan  in- 
vestigations for  our  facts  regarding  the  nutrition  of  plants  and  the  ac- 
tion of  manures.  Our  information  is  incomplete,  and  even  the  foremost 
teachers  may  give  us  wrong  counsel. 

Dr.  J.  B.  Lawes,  of  Eothamsted,  England,  unquestionably  the  fore- 


most  field  experimenter  in  the  world,  in  writing,  in  1873,  to  the  treas- 
urer of  the  Massachusetts  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Agriculture, 
said:  "The  best  possible  manure  for  all  graminaceous  crops — wheat, 
barley,  maize  (corn),  oats,  sugar-cane,  rice,  and  pasture  grass — is  a  mix- 
ture of  superphosphate  and  nitrate  of  soda.  *  *  *  Potash  is  gen- 
erally found  in  sufficient  quantities  in  soils,  and  the  artificial  supply  is 
not  required."  In  more  than  half  of  our  experiments  with  corn,  and  in 
nearly  all  with  potatoes,  the  crops  have  been  materially  aided  by  pot- 
ash salts,  and  without  potash  in  the  fertilizer  they  have  often  failed. 
The  mixture  which  Dr.  Lawes  regards  as  "the  best  possible  manure" 
for  corn  was  sometimes  very  useful  and  sometimes  brought  almost  no 
return.  The  potash,  which  his  experience  in  England  led  him  to  con- 
sider superfluous,  was  here,  in  many  cases,  the  most  necessary  of  all  the 
tertiliziug  ingredients. 

Several  years  ago  the  professor  of  agiculture  of  one  of  our  leading 
agricultural  colleges  i)roposed  a  series  of  formulas  for  different  crops. 
With  the  rest  was  one  for  corn,  which,  with  a  moderate  proportion  of 
]iotash  and  a  small  amount  of  phosphoric  acid,  supplied  nitrogen  at  the 
rate  of  64  pounds,  and  at  a  cost  of  over  $15  per  acre.  Later,  a  well- 
known  writer  upon  agricultural  science  has  enthusiastically  advocated 
the  culture  of  corn  with  chemicals,  recommending  for  the  puri)Ose,  and 
using  in  an  extensive  series  of  experiments  upon  his  own  farm,  a  fertil- 
izer which  supplied  nitrogen  at  tbe  rnte  of  90  pounds,  and  at  a  cost  of 
$L8  to  $20  per  acre.  Both  of  these  gentlemen  thus  assumed  that  to  raise 
corn  successfully  would  require  large  and  costly  supplies  of  niti"Ogen. 
Tbe  question  whether  corn  can  gather  its  own  nitrogen,  like  clover,  or 
demands  an  artificial  supply,  like  wheat,  whether  it  is  an  "exhausting" 
or  a  "renovating"  crop,  has  been  much  discussed.  Upon  its  answer  de- 
pends the  success  of  corn-growing  in  our  older  States.  The  experiments 
referred  to  bear  emphatic  testimony  upon  this  point.  The  corn  has  al- 
most uniformly  refused  to  respond  to  nitrogen  in  fertilizers,  and  persists 
in  getting  on  well  without  any  artificial  supply.  But  it  has  been  largely 
benefited  by  phosphoric  acid,  and  often  by  jjotash.  The  formulas  above, 
with  their  large  and  excessively  expensive  amounts  of  nitrogen,  would, 
in  nearly  every  case,  have  involved  great  waste  of  both  fertilizer  and 
money. 

EXPERIMENTS    UPON    THE    EFFECTS    OF    NITROGI^ENOUS    FERTILIZERS. 

One  of  the  ways  in  which  co-operative  field  experiments  may  aid  in 
the  solution  of  these  problems  may  be  illustrated  by  citing  some  of  the 
details  of  the  series  of  experiments  upon  the  effect  of  nitrogen  in  fer- 
tilizers which  were  referred  to  above,  and  which  have  been  performed  by 
a  number  of  professors  in  agricultural  colleges  and  practical  farmers, 
with  wliat  seems  to  me  most  gratifying  success. 
The  specific  questions  to  be  studied  may  be  stated  thus: 
1st.  How  do  the  plants  experimented  with  get  on  with  the  "mineral" 
fertilizers,  such  as  are  suj)plied  by  superphosphates  and  potash  salts? 


2d.  More  especially,  bow  do  they  respond  to  nitrogen  when  added,  in 
different  forms  and  amounts,  to  the  mineral  fertilizers'? 

od.  And  ftually,  what  inferences  may  we  draw  as  to  the  feeding  capaci- 
ties of  the  plants,  their  power  to  gather  their  food  from  soil  and  air,  and 
llie  effects  of  ditferent  raateiials  upon  their  growth,  especial  reference 
being  made  to  the  nitrogen  supply? 

I'^or  the  systematic  study  of  these  questions  a  special  "nitrogen  ex- 
periment" was  devised  in  1878,  and  conducted  by  several  gentlemen. 
Similar  series  were  repeated  in  1879,  and  with  some  variations  in  1880 
and  1881. 

The  idea  was  to  compare  the  effects  of  mineral  fertilizers  (superphos- 
phate an  I  potash  salt)  alone,  and  the  same  with  nitrogen  in  different 
amounts  and  lorms;.  The  plan  is  explained  in  the  following  extract  from 
a  circular  sent  to  the  experimenters : 

The  Ghjcct  of  (his  experiment  is  to  test  the  effects  of  nitrogenous  fertilizers  in  differ- 
ent anion  nts  and  combinations  npon  the  growth  of  the  plant,  and  inlereuti;dly  its 
cai)acity  to  gather  its  nitrogen  Ironi  natural  sources. 

The  Ferfilizers. — The  ingredients  and  amounts  are  such  as  are  used  in  ordinary  pra,c- 
tice,  phosphoric  acid  and  potash  being  supplied  in  about  the  proportions  that  occur 
in  a,  corn  crop  of  fifty  or  sixty  bushels,  and  nitrogen  in  one-third,  two-thirds,  and  full 
amount  in  same  crop. 

Forms  of  Nitrogen. — The  ni.trogen  is  supplied  as  nitric  acid  in  nitrate  of  soda;  as 
ammonia  in  sulphate  of  ammonia,  and  as  organic  nitrogen  in  dried  blood. 

QuaniUles  of  Nitrogen. — The  nitrogen  is  supplied  at  the  rate  of  twenty-four  X)Ounds 
per  acre  in  "  one-third  ration";  forty-eight  pounds  jiev  acre  in  "two-thirds  ration"; 
and  seventy-two  jjounds  per  acre  in  "full  ration  ". 

Arrangement  of  Plots  and  Fertilizers. — The  ingredients  are  supplied  as: 

_,,.,„    ..,.  C  Group  I.   Nos.  i — 3.  each  by  itself.  >  Thus  testing  the  effects  of  ingredients  sep.a- 

Jr-artial  lertuizers,    ^  (j ,.^,„p  ji;_   jjos.  4—6.    Two  by  two.  i     rately,  and  capacity  of  soil. 

f  Group  III.  Ifos.  7 — 9.  Kitrogen  as  nitric  acid] 

I      in  nitrate  of  sodi. 
r.        1  4-     f  ^-T  I  Group  IV.  Nos.  10 — 12.  Xitrogen  as  ammonia  I  Nitrogen    in    one-third,     two- 

Lcm^jlCLe  lertuizers  s      in  sulphate  of  ammonia.  (     thirds,  full  ration. 

1  Group  V.    Nos.  13—15.    Nitrogen  as  organic 

\     nitrogen  in  dried  blood.  J 

The  fertilizers  were  supplied,  in  part  at  cost,  and  in  part  gratui- 
tously, by  the  Mapes  Formula  and  Peruvian  Guano  Company  of  New 
York.  Especial  thanks  are  due  to  Mr.  0.  V.  Mapes,  without  whose  in- 
terest and  enthusiasm,  as  well  as  counsel  and  substantial  help,  the  enter- 
prise could  not  have  succeeded  as  it  has. 

The  full  details  of  the  experiments  are  to  appear  in  a  report  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  The  tables  herewith  give 
an  outline  of  results  of  some  of  the  experiments  of  the  last  season  and 
will  serve  as  illustrations.  The  figures  are,  however,  much  condensed 
and  many  interesting  details  are  omitted. 

Table  I  gives  the  results  of  several  experiments  with  cotton,  corn, 
and  potatoes.  The  unfavorable  weather  which  affected  the  majority  of 
the  experiments,  has  reduced  the  yield  materially  in  most  of  these. 
In  several  the  effects  of  unevenness  of  soil  are  manifest ;  on  some  the 
supply  of  available  plant  food  in  the  soil  was  evidently  so  great  as  to 
ol>8cure  the  action  of  the  fertilizers.    Those  of  Mr.  Xewton  with  corn 


and  Mr.  Manning  with  clover,  show  marked  exceptions  to  what  seems  to 
be  the  common  rule,  that  these  crops  are  not  greatly  aided  by  nitrogenous 
fertilizers.  Indeed,  all  illustrate  forcibly  our  need  of  more  experiment- 
ing. 

Table  II  shows  an  experiment  on  an  older  and  slightly  diiierent 
schedule.  It  is  interesting  both  because  of  its  sharply-defined  results 
and  as  an  illustration  of  the  excellent  work  ordinary  farmers  do  in  this 
line. 

Table  I.  Kitrogen  Experiments,  1881. 

I.  Prof.  W.  C.  Stubbs,  Alabama  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  College, 

Auburn,  Ala.: 
Soil — Worn-out  pasture;  level,  upland,  sandy,  light,  well-drained. 
Siohsoil — Reddish  yellow  clay.      Weather — Dry  and  unfavorable. 

II.  Edward  Hicks,  Old  Westbury,  N.  Y. : 

Soil — Level,  sandy  loam,  light,  dry.  Subsoil — Yellow  loam.  Pre- 
vious crop — Corn.     Weather — ^Dry  and  unfavorable. 

III.  PiiOF.  C.  L.  Ingersoll,  Purdue  University,  La  Fayette,  Ind. : 
Soil — Upland,  level,  black,  similar  to  prairie,  sticky  when  wet, 

bakes  when  dry;  dry,  well  drained.     Subsoil — Gravel.     Previous 
crop — Corn.     Weather — Very  dry  and  unfavorable. 

IV.  Prof.  Samuel  Johnson,  Michigan  Agricultural  College,  Lansing, 

Mich. : 
Soil — Level,   upland,  sandy  loam,  light,  drained  dry.     Subsoil — 
Gravelly.     Previous  crop — Corn.     Weather — Dry,  cold,  unfavor- 
able. 

V.  W.  C.  Newton,  Durham,  Conn.: 

Soil — Old  meadow,  hill  land,  dark  loam.  Svhsoil — Moist.  Weather — 
Unfavorable. 

VI.  J.  W.  Pierce,  West  Millbury,  Mass. : 

Soil — Worn-out  grass  land,  upland,  nearly  level,  clay  loam,  light, 
dry.  Subsoil — Gravelly,  but  some  clay.  irm//ier— Cold  and  un- 
favorable. 

VII.  C.  E.  Thorne,   farm  manager,  Ohio  State  University,  Colum- 

bus, O. : 
Soil — Level,  upland,  clayey  loam,  "  drift  formation"  from  Huron 
shale,   compact,  wet  before  draining.     Subsoil — Similar  to  sur- 
face soil,  retentive.     Previous  crop — Corn,  with  stable  manure. 
Weather — Severe  drouth. 

VIII.  J.  M.  Manning,  Taunton,  Mass. : 

Soil — Upland,  sandy  loam,  loose.  Subsoil — Yellow  sand.  Previous 
crops — Potatoes  and  corn.      Weather — Unfavorable. 


8 


M  O 


P  03  C  ra 

..-"    ,  p 

H  <^  ~  -« 


CO  O  O  "*     00        CO        -^ 
.  -^t  !:>  ^  05      O        lO         r-l 


>o 


t>  o 


o      g  M 

g    ^^o 

Hd        cc  O 

C3  fe  -  'fl 

C  O  W  1^ 

Oi^  3  B 

H'*  '^l  O 

(H  a  fc;  ^ 

=  o  S  = 

OJ   ^    so    53 
COM    ??    23 

c£  •-'  si  -  3 
O  fl  ?  p 


mS 


-O  r-l 


oco:d  CO 

hC^  O  TjJ  CC  00 


ro  t*  o  t-    CO 
f^i  o  »-^  o  t>    '^ 


f-l  r-i  r^  ^,_lrt  c<j  (^1^,-t  ^ 


00     r-(        .-( 


O  OO  O 
(M  O  O  O 
-ft     04  lO  00 


CO     -tji  -^  CO 


s  r-(  rH  tH  r-l     1-1        Cq 


lO»0000     00 
i<  5^  C<i  D^  lO      CO 


t— rHCq  O      CO 

£  -^  CO  r-3  ri      rH 
3  Tp  O  Ift  lO      CD 


to     rl     04 


(M     CO         CO         CO 


00         CO     CO 


(M         CO         "^     CM 


iHt^t-        O        tPOtH        CO        MHi-H 


as    CO    i?:> 


CqCi'^lOCO         \C        1(0         CO         lO 


t«: 00 uo CD-**    CO 


Ml      I-      ^1 


1^  CO  CO  CO  M     COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


O      r-l     OS         ^ 

ici    ITS    -^      m 


-<*    lO    -^       -<* 

CO     CO     CO         CO 


CO  O  00  lO     Id 

rfi  CO  CO  o-i  Hi    "d^ 

2  rH  04  (M  CO     (M 


00         LOOOO         00         liOOCO         CO         (Mt* 

Ci  r-HO(>  O  C^05t>  CO  U0C5 

CO         COCOtM        CO        COMCO        CO         COCO 


t—  ifi  Ol  -^  05    (M    OS 

OO  ^  CO  CO   OS    CO    r- 
a  lO  00  rH  m   lO    OS    (M 


(M      lO     CO         1(0         (M 

rr      r-l      rH         CO         W 


^    a       •    CO    ^    r- . 

ror-  2  mr3  «  ^  OO  K- 


■^  p.  ^^  - 


-  ~  --  ■  .s  — 


O  r4  C4  CO     -^ 


'.  (» 

t»  ^ 

^  p  !Z!  p  CO  tC 
"  =  i,  B  S  IB 
«    O    N    O    N    SI 

^  O  +^  =>  "li  '-C 

.-  CO  _q;  -^si  ^  ^j; 

-   M  i  to   g   - 

■- "3 '3  "o  ■?: 'J^ 

C   ::,,  a  ,_,  E  = 

'?  ?  s  «'?  £ 
.£  -^  .ij  -E  .2 .2 


<'=  ^"^  o 


3  r—  ;:  ^^  ;:  ^-H  .— c<i  ^^  o 


"    O   05 


S* 

«  ^ 


r5  C~ 


23- 

■5  £' 


C2— -r 


3  O  S  o 


Hon 
111 


S5 


e:  a 


S^SPS 


^i^-zaanSaspSf 


05       S     O         1—         03     -Cl     CO 
»     rH         rl         1-1      «3      — 


rH      COiH  O 


S     '^ 


(H      f*:       cs 


<      ^       o 


Cm  0) 


O  a) 


L-  ^  CM  G^]  iM  t>  t^  t- 


j(MLr^io»f:i-ti?^cot^O       oooir^t 


OOOOCOOOOOOOOX' 
■€©-:MCM-VCJ'«^t^O0CDTt» 


lOiMOlCOOt^OOCNCO 


C5l>lO(M'<^OCCCO!DCO 


«DOCOfMCSOJiOi— it:*05 


■e«-         i~i 


i-ICMCQCDCOCOC5r-\C5CO 


-  b- I>  b- b- I>  l>  t> 

j  o  ;o  CO  o  o  o  o 

>  TJ-  CS  O  CO  O  i-l  o 


rH         r-l(M(M  rO 


CD^OiOOCOf-lGO 
(M  (M  -^  "^  r-i 


ooooomoi^QO 


oi>r^oc:ocoo 

L^CiD00COI>t>Ir-iO 


ccccoooosoiftt* 

Tj-CSTfi-iCMrHOOOO 


<M  CM  C15         CO  C'l  CM 


10  10  ITS  o  L*:!  10 10  10      000 


i-i  C<1CM         CMCMIM 


ooococoo®co 

Cii— .-'OOOOOCO 


r>b-t^t^r^t>tr^t^ 

'^XOOOOCOCC'O 
05t—  lOir5»^OQl>UO 


1-1  CM  ri  CM  c-i  r 


ocomosoosiOi-i 
idodcMoiooi^co 

CM  CM  CO         CO  CMCQ 


T*5  CO  00 


^OOOC5t-Ot>b-t-OOI>t-t:-I:*OCOC-COOCOOO 

'*^6'^iooTJ!xo'3^cooT^5^dc^'^'^Ol':i'*cocdc35-d^•^ 

^ . .„«   •--i'MCOTICiTTCMTf^i-ICOCOCCOJCMlfSt- 


:;cMTj'io»o;w'Ci': 


. 00000000 -o  000000000000000 

ooCOC^l  —  CJCDCO*COOOCX>OC'^COXOOOOCOCDCMOOCDOO 
j;:)^C0CCt>Oi-(C-llQ00C0t>CMr-iC0lr-l:^L~-OOL^.-iC00305 


<T-,^^rt<^5C^C^COCO'*i-li-(C0C0C0r-(COC0CMi-irHrHt-iT-i 


;Cii-'COCOCS»ACO-»*<'"*T*'COli:5030-<*COCSOOTi40COCOOO 

icOTcco^f-HCMco-H^oSaJcdi^rHirioico^co-^ioe^rHi^rirf 

SCMCOCCCOl!::iT*«CClOUOOCOCMia»f50COOl«OCOC<ICOCOrr 


P  3  X  o 

p-o-   rt  p  g 


zo  _'  a  Z''  p. » 

S   C5   O   ^  O  O 
«-M    ft®  CO  Tp 

0!!  1-  "  +^   X   o 

fTti  P  a  =>  ° 
^"1^  V(  rt  a::  <i) 

:2  "z    -  (n  rt  c3  _5 

ill  §11^.44^- 

^  0.="  ^^20  =  0° 

>£5  o  th  ■«  10  ^<^  ^  '^»<H 
^  o5" 


o  O  o 


9  3  _- 


o  o^ 


3>n  o 


oo  o 

10  o  o 

f-  i-  « 
S  =  3 

fl  a  a   :2^ 

Q^  4J  D      r^^ -^ 

-    -    ^-^    -    .  ^^ 

m  m  !j}       CO  02^  ■* 

-* -s -a —TS -3  "2  ^ 

H  p  p=o  p  p  Pg- 
c  o  o^  o  0  2  o 

m  o  1.1  2  in  10  "-o  2 

T*<  ■*  Tj*  sS-"*  Tji  "^     " 


S-'  ft' 
^  t)j  ft+^  fcJC  bl  ft,- ,-.,_,,_.  5 


"ci  "S  "a  "5  a  "a  3'3 
ppppppfcrpg 

a  a  a  a  a  a  I  a  I 

5S£S£££5a 
.i:^  .i:3  .d  ^i.  .ii  .2  ^  .!i  ° 


-2.S 
2  fl 


35- 

-  tn 

p  p  9 
=  a  =s 


iJ  ii  2 

a  s  a 

O  -  rt 


e 


'S  "  00  « 

to  C8   o   ^ 

S  a-S'- 
P  ?H  9 

^  p  ■:;  -a 

C  P  2  S5 

Sftal 

_p  i.  >,p. 


■S  M.a 


p^e- 


9  =  ^ 


53  :;  ir<  ts 
-a   .^-^ 

>  m  O  p 

2-3  S^ 

o  So  - 

,-  ^  a 

"  s  * 

>■  ^  (z; 


'5  2° 

cp.-^S„- 
o  ^  o  2 

ti  ^  g  p 

o  o  >>o 
«  9  Oi  t^ 

«=?  !,« 


_2  c  o 


^-a  Wo. 
P  h  9  p, 

S"  O   tc   P 

^  ffl  33 

.2^;!:=  SB 

<E  a'5'53 

°   «!   CE   « 

S,sa=2 

:3  o  «;■  H 
a:*-  »£ 

gc  £  ft 

ft^?:^9 


o  .     — .  X  «: 
s:^  ?  3  ■" 

c  c^-rt 

ft'^  °  £  o 
o  9  a  5-r> 

^  "  C  N  =c 


10 

The  variety  of  results  in  the  different  experiments  is  very  striking. 
Mr.  W.  I.  Bartholomew,  of  Putnam,  Conn.,  has  been  conducting  thenitro- 
gen  experiments  with  corn  and  i)otatoes  for  three  years.  In  every  trial 
every  plot  which  has  received  phosphoric  acid  has  given  a  more  or  less 
satisfactory  return,  aud  every  one  without  phosphoric  acid  has  failed. 
Nitrogen  and  potash  have  each  increased  the  yield  of  corn,  but  neither 
lias  brought  enough  iucrease  to  pay  its  cost,  and  the  loss  has  been  larger 
or  smaller  as  more  or  less  was  used.  Potatoes,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
responded  profitably  to  all  the  ingredients. 

Mr.  C.  Sage,  of  Middletown,  Conn.,  has  had  a  very  different  experience. 
Mtrogen  has  proved  as  inefficient  on  his  land  as  on  Mr.  Bartholomew's. 
Phosphoric  acid,  which  Mr.  Bartholomew  finds  so  effective,  lielps  him 
but  little,  while  i>otash  is  decidedly  the  regulating  ingredient,  the  corn 
]  esponding  uniformly  and  largely  to  every  application  of  i)otash  salt. 
One  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  per  acre  of  muriate  of  potash,  costing 
$3.50,  makes  the  diff'erence  between  corn  so  poor  as  to  be  hardly  worth 
the  husking,  and  CO  bushels  or  more  of  beautiful  shelled  corn  and  a  fine 
growth  of  stalks. 

In  the  experiment  of  Mr.  C.  Newton,  of  Durham,  Conn.,  given  in 
Table  I,  we  have  a  still  different  result.  Potash  is  as  useless  as  in  Mr. 
Bartholomew's  experiment.  Phosphoric  acid  does  no  more  good  here 
than  with  Mr.  Sage.  But  the  nitrogen  to  which  both  these  gentlemen's 
corn  paid  so  little  heed  is  on  Mr.  Newton's  soil  uniformly  efficient.  The 
corn  responds  largely  and  profitably  to  nitrogen  in  every  form  and  on 
every  plot,  and  the  yield  rises  and  falls  regularly  with  the  amount  of 
nitrogen  applied;  I  should  add  that  in  each  of  these  cases  the  results  are 
those  not  of  a  single,  but  of  two  or  three  years'  trials.  Mr.  Newton's 
experience,  however,  seems  to  be  an  exception  and  an  unusual  one. 
Instances  in  which  the  nitrogen  is  absolutely  harmful  are  much  more 
frequent.  Professor  Thome's  in  Table  I  is  such  an  one.  The  corn  here 
suffered  from  very  severe  drought,  but  Professor  Thorne  writes  me 
that  he  has  observed  the  same  thing  in  favorable  seasons,  and  several 
other  reports  tell  the  same  story.  Mr.  J.  W.  Sanborn,  the  well-known 
jarm  superintendent  and  experimenter  of  the  New  Hampshire  Agricul- 
tural College,  has  a  case  in  which  sulphate  of  ammonia  helped  the  corn 
materialy  the  first  season,  did  no  good  the  second,  aud  "utterly  demor- 
alized" it  the  third. 

On  soils  that  are  rich,  or  even  in  only  fairly  ^ood  condition,  nitrogen- 
ous fertilizers,  like  other  manures,  often  show  very  little  effect.  Such 
seems  to  be  the  case  in  Professor  Henry's  experiment  in  Table  I. 

EFFECTS   OF  NITROGrENOUS  FERTILIZERS   UPON   CORN. 

Estimating  a  bushel  of  corn,  with  its  cobs  and  stalks,  to  contain  1^ 
of  nitrogen,  and  to  be  worth  80  cents,  the  effects  of  the  nitrogenous 
fertilizers  in  the  special  and  in  the  general  experiments  may  be  summa- 
rized as  follows,  remembering  that  the  superphosphate  and  potash  salt, 


11 


"mixed  minerals,"  supplied  the  amounts  of  pbosphoricacid  and  potash, 
in  a  crop  of  not  far  from  55  or  60  bushels,  which  would  also  contain 
about  the  72  pounds  of  nitrogen. 

In  the  general  experiments  of  the  mixture  of  300  pounds  superphos- 
phate and  200  pounds  muriate  of  i)otash  brought  on  the  average  of  fifty- 
three  experiments,  about  43^  bushels  of  shelled  corn  per  acre.  The 
special  experiments,  however,  seem  to  me  a  fairer  test  of  what  the  fer- 
tilizei's  may  do,  because,  while  made  in  all  sorts  of  weather  and  on 
worn-out  soils,  they  were  nearly  all  on  soils  and  in  latitudes  lit  for  corn, 
as  many  of  the  general  experiments  were  not.  In  these  the  mixture  of 
300  pounds  superphosphate  and  150  pounds  of  potash  salt,  which  can 
be  bought  for  $8.25,  brought,  on  the  average,  43  bushels  of  shelled 
corn  i)er  acre.  Omitting  Mr.  ISTcwton's  experiment,  the  results  of  which 
are  very  exceptional,  the  average  is  44J  bushels. 

The  experitoents  of  the  four  seasons  bear  almost  unanimous  testimony 
to  two  things :  The  corn  was  helped  but  little  by  nitrogen  in  the  fertil- 
izers; and  it  gathered  a  good  deal  from  natural  sources.  The  increase 
of  crop  and  of  nitrogen  in  the  crop  will  appear  more  clearly  if  we  look 
at  it  another  way. 


In  number  of 
trials. 

Withn 
Amount  per  acre. 

itrogen. 

Contained  in  crop 
of— 

The    average   in- 
crease   of   com 
was. 

The  increase  of  nit- 
rogen in  the  ciop 
was. 

95 

76 
42 

Pounds. 

24 
48 
72 

Bushels. 
18 
36 
54 

Bushels. 
3.6 
5.3 
6.6 

Pounds. 

4.8 
7.1 
8.8 

Or,  estimating  the  results  in  dollars  and  cents  : 


In  trials,  total 
number. 

With  nitrogen, 
amounts. 

Costing. 

The  nitrogen 
])ai(l   for  it- 
self in  trials. 

The     nitrogen 
failed  to  pay 
for   itself    in 
tiials. 

The  average  loss 
in  till-  several 
trials  was. 

95 

76 
42 

24  lbs. 
48  lbs. 
72  lbs. 

$5  50 
11  OO 
16  50 

21 
13 
4 

74 
03 
38 

$2  62 

6  76 

11  22 

The  only  cases  in  which  the  largest  rations  were  profitable  were  in 
the  experiments  of  Mr.  Newton. 

The  above  calculations  of  pecuniary  loss  and  gain  of  course  apply  only 
to  those  regions  where  corn  is  dear.  Bnt  even  at  these  rates  the  nitrogen 
increased  the  crop  enough  to  pay  its  costs  in  only  38  trials  out  of  213. 
The  pecuniary  loss  rose  and  fell  with  the  amount  of  nitrogen  used. 
With  mineral  fertilizers  alone  the  crop  gathered,  by  the  above  estimates, 
some  60  jjounds  of  nitrogen  per  acre. 

The  important  fact,  however,  is  this :  The  corn  plant  has  in  these  trials 
shown  itself  capable  of  getting  on  and  bringing  fair  yields  with  small 


12 

amounts  of  the  less  costly  mineral  fertilizers,  even  in  the  worn-out  soils 
of  the  Eastern  States.  With  this  help  it  has  gathered  its  nitrogen  from 
natural  sources,  and  holds  it  readily  to  be  fed  out  on  the  farm  and  re- 
turned in  the  form  of  manure  for  other  crops.  In  other  words,  the  ex- 
jjeriments  thus  far  imply  that  corn  has,  somehow  or  other,  the  power  to 
gather  a  great  deal  of  nitrogen  from  soil  or  air,  or  both ;  that  in  this 
respect  it  comes  nearer  to  the  legumes  than  the  cereals ;  that,  in  short, 
corn  i.iay  be  classed  with  the  "renovating"  crops.  If  this  is  really  so, 
and  this  can  be  settled  only  by  continued  exi)erimenting,  then  our  great 
cereal,  instead  of  being  simi^ly  a  consumer  of  the  fertilitj"  of  our  soils, 
may  be  used  as  agent  for  their  restoration. 

FEEDINGr   CAPACITIES   OF   OTHER   CROPS. 

The  results  of  the  experiments  with  other  crops  were  briefly  sum- 
marized in  an  account  given  in  the  last  report  of  the  Connecticut 
board  of  agriculture,  as  follows  : 

Taking  all  in  all,  tlie  potatoes  responded  well  to  the  suiierpliosphate,  the  potash  salt, 
and  the  nitrogenons  fertilizers,  and  the  "  complete  fertilizer"  has  been  most  profitable 
in  almost  every  case  where  the  weather  permitted  fair  growth.  None  of  the  other 
crops,  except,  perhaps,  turnips,  have  shown  such  uniformly  beneficial  results  from  all 
the  materials. 

The  experiments  indicate  very  decidedly  that  the  potato  lilaiit  differs  from  many 
others  in  respect  to  the  eftect  of  th.^se  fertilizing  materials  upon  its  growth,  and  imply 
that  it  has  less  capacity  than  corn  for  gathering  an  adequate  supply  of  food  from  nat- 
ural sources.  It  seems  to  demand  a  full  and  immediately  available  sujiply  of  nourish- 
ment for  its  successful  growth. 

Concerning  the  other  crops,  the  data  at  hand  are  too  meager  to  warrant  any  gen- 
eral conclusions.  *  *  *  In  general,  however,  the  experiments  accord  with  the 
common  notion  that  makes  superphosphate  almost  a  specific  for  turnips.  But  they 
imply  that  even  when  the  suiJcrphosphate  is  supplied  in  abundance,  the  turnip  is  not 
usually  able  to  gather  enough  of  the  other  materials  for  a  full  yield  unless  they  are 
close  at  hand  in  readily  available  forms. 

EXPEEI10]NTS  WITH   COTTON. 

Professor  Stubbs'  experiment  with  cotton  is  extremely  interesting. 
Phosphoric  acid  has  great,  and  potash  very  little,  effect.  JSTitrogen 
increases  the  crop,  but  that  in  cotton-seed  meal  is  as  useful,  or  more  so, 
than  in  the  other  and  more  costly  materials,  nitrate  of  soda,  sulphate  of 
ammonia,  and  dried  blood.  This  is  only  one  of  a  number  of  experi- 
ments which  Professor  Stubbs  has  made,  upon  whose  results,  vadded  to 
his  general  experience,  he  bases  a  number  of  important  conclusions, 
among  which  are  the  following : 

1.  Our  [Alabama]  soils,  which  result  from  the  disintegration  of  metamorphic  rocks, 
principally  feldspathic  and  hornblendic,  need  a  little  nitrogen,  much  phosphoric  acid, 
and  no  potash  for  cotton. 

2.  Our  great  want,  and  it  seems  to  prevail  through  the  older  cotton  States  (except 
the  black  cretaceous  belt  of  Alabama,  which  has  not  been  thoroughly  tested),  is  soluble 
phosphoric  acid.  On  worn-out  soils  a  small  amount  of  nitrogen  is  required.  A  fertil- 
izer with  3  per  cent,  of  nitrogen  and  10  per  cent,  of  soluble  phosphoric  acid,  meets 
the  demand  very  well. 


13 

3.  Phosphoric  acid  hastens  and  nitrogen  retards  the  maturity  of  the  crop. 

4.  Cotton  seed  and  cotton-seed  meal  are  as  effective  as  dried  blood,  sulphate  of  am- 
monia, nitrate  of  soda,  or  other  nitrogenous  fertilizers,  and  far  cheaper  and  more  eco- 
nomical. 

To  what  extent  and  under  what  conditions  such  princij)les  as  these 
are  applicable  in  the  culture  of  cotton  and'  other  crops,  are  matters  of 
vital  importance  in  Southern  agriculture.  The  usefulness  of  systematic 
experiments  to  test  them  needs  no  argument. 

EFFECTS    OF    PHOSPHORIC   ACID    IN    DIFFERENT    FORMS   OF    COMBINA- 
TION. 

The  nitrogen  supply  is  only  one  of  the  many  questions  whose  solution 
is  of  vital  importance  to  our  agriculture.  The  relations  of  phosphoric 
acid,  iJOtash,  and  other  ingredients  of  plant  food,  whose  lack  in  our  soils 
we  seek  to  supply,  at  great  expense,  with  j)hosphates  and  potash  salts, 
demand  equally  full  and  thorough  study. 

Treating  the  insoluble  phosphate  of  bone  or  mineral  phosphate  with 
acid  to  make  sujjerphosphate  is  expensive.  Soluble  phosphoric  acid 
costs  us  from  12  to  15  cents  or  more  per  pound,  while  we  can  buy  it  in 
the  insoluble  forms  for  from  4  to  6  or  7  cents.  The  general  theory  is  that 
superphosphate  is  necessary,  but  still,  somehow  or  other,  many  of  us 
have  the  ieeling  that,  in  many  cases  at  least,  the  cheaper  insoluble  phos- 
phates would  do  as  well ;  that  fine  grinding  might  serve  instead  of  super- 
phosphating;  and  that  there  are  many  cases  in  which  the  cheaj)  rock 
phosphates  might  replace  the  dearer  bone  manure.  If  so,  the  saving 
would  be  immense. 

The  Aberdeenshire  Agricultural  Association  of  Scotland,  through  Mr. 
Thomas  Jamieson,  F.  C.  S.,  its  chemist,  has  been  for  several  years  past 
conducting  an  extended  system  of  experiments  in  which  have  been 
studied,  with  other  things,  the  effects  of  phosphoric  fertilizers  of  differ- 
ent sorts,  alone  and  associated  with  nitrogen. 

The  results  of  several  years  work  on  five  typical  varieties  of  Aber- 
deen soil  in  the  oidinary  state  of  cultivation  are  summarized  by  Mr. 
Jamieson  in  the  statements. 

1.  That  phosphates  of  lime  decidedly  increase  the  turnip  crop,  but  that  fanners  need 
not  trouble  themselves  to  know  whether  they  are  of  animal  or  mineral  origin. 

2.  That  soluble  phosphate  is  not  superior  to  insoluble  phosphate  to  the  extent  that 
is  generally  supposed. 

3.  That  nitrogenous  manures  have  little  effect  on  turnips  used  alone,  but  when  used 
■with  insoluble  phosphates  increase  the  crop ;  that  the  addition  of  nitrogen  to  solu- 
ble phosphates  does  not  seem  to  increase  the  solid  or  dry  matter  in  the  crop ;  that 
there  is  no  material  difference  between  the  effects  of  equal  quantities  of  nitrogen  in 
nitrate  of  soda  and  in  sulphate  of  ammonia. 

4.  That  fineness  of  division  seems  nearly  as  effective  in  assisting  the  braird  and  in- 
creasing the  croj)  as  the  addition  of  nitrogenous  manures.  Hence  the  most  economi- 
cal phosphoric  manure  for  turnips  is  probably  insoluble  phosphate  of  lime,  from  imj'^ 
.source,  ground  down  to  an  impalpable  powder. 


14 

Mr.  G.  Clenclon,  jr.,  of  Buckner's  Station,  Va.,  who  has  carried  out  a 
series  of  the  '^general"  experiments  above  referred  to,  and  taken  the 
opijortnnity  to  test  finely-ground  South  Carolina  phosphate  alongside 
the  dissolved  bone  black,  obtained  with  the  raw  i)hosphate  a  yield 
larger  than  with  superphosphate  or  stable  manure,  and  nearly  as  large 
as  with  the  complete  fertilizer.  The  testimony  of  a  single  experiment, 
of  course,  must  always  be  questioned;  but  Mr.  Clendon's  results  have 
the  regularity  that  characterizes  uniform  land,  and  seem  to  be  borne 
out  by  other  experiments  and  his  general  experience.    He  writes : 

My  experiments  have  been  carried  on  over  ten  years.  In  everj-^  year  the  good  effect 
of  the  raw  phosphate  was  apparent.  *  *  *  The  soil  is  a  decomposed  gneiss,  uui- 
Ibrmlj'  poor,  and  is  a  fair  sample  of  hundreds  of  square  miles  lying  between  the  base 
of  the  Blue  Eidge  and  tide-water  in  Virginia.  #  »  «  j  think  the  experiments 
should  be  repeated  over  a  wider  country. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  familiar  fact  that  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Charleston,  S.  C,  where  ttie  raw  phosphate  is  obtained,  its  use  in  the 
raw  state  has  not  become  general,  and  that  many  attempts  elsewhere  to 
introduce  insoluble  j)hosphates  have  failed.  When,  where,  and  why  the 
different  forms  of  phosphoric  acid  are  in  i)lace,  are  ijroblems  that  demand 
thorough  investigation. 

WHAT   IS  NEEDED  FOB  SUCCESSFUL  FIELD  EXPERIMENTING. 

Unless  I  greatly  err,  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  failure  of  so  much 
of  the  honest  and  thorough  field  experimenting  that  has  been  done,  to 
accomplish  its  puri)ose  has  been  that  the  questions  have  been  too  com- 
l)lex,  while  the  work  has  not  been  i)rosecuted  far  enough  to  make  it  all 
complete. 

It  is  by  selecting  specific  and  narrow  questions,  and  working  at  them 
systematically  and  continuously,  that  we  shall  secure  the  most  valuable 
results.  There  has  been  too  much  firing  at  random.  We  need  to  choose 
I)roper  points  of  attack,  be  sure  of  our  aim,  and  concentrate  our  fire 
until  a  breach  is  made. 

CO-OPERATIVE  EXPERIIVIENTING. 

And  we  need  not  only  to  work  rightly,  but  to  work  together.  Experi- 
ments with  a  common  object  on  a  common  plan,  conducted  by  intelligent, 
careful  investigators,  in  different  places,  under  diflerent  but  accurately 
observed  and  recorded  conditions,  are  needed  to  bring  the  results  which 
scientific  agriculture  so  pressingly  demands. 

A  letter  from  Professor  Henry,  of  the  agricultural  department  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin,  says  most  aj)tly,  "  What  we  most  need  is  wi/ow," 
and  dwells  upon  the  imx)ortauce  of  co-operative  field  exj>eriments  with 
fertilizers,  experiments  which  shall  be  ^^ far-reaching^^  in  their  character. 

Mr.  Sanborn,  of  the  Xew  Hampshire  Agricultural  College,  in  alluding 
to  the  fact  that  most  of  our  agricultural  science  hitherto  has  come  from 
Europe,  and  that  we  need  facts  and  principles  of  our  own,  says  of  the 


15 

^voik  of  field  experimenting  with  fertilizers:  ''It  is  of  incalculable  im- 
portance to  the  country,"  and  adds:  "The  co-operative  plan  is  the  only 
right  thing  if  quick  and  reliable  work  is  to  be  done."  And  unless  I 
greatly  err,  these  gentlemen,  who,  with  numerous  others,  are  showing 
their  faith  by  their  works,  are  expressing  in  the  words  just  quoted  a 
general  sentiment  of  the  men  who  to-day  are  doing  most  to  promote 
agricultural  science  in  this  country. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  way  to  co-operate  is  to  co  operate.  The 
way  to  get  on  is  to  "stay  not  upon  the  order  of  your  going,  but  go." 
Go  wisely,  carefully,  rationally,  slowly  if  need  be — but  go. 

The  colleges  and  experiment  stations  of  nine  States,  and  several  promi- 
nent farmers  of  the  same  and  other  States,  have  already  commenced  work 
on  the  schedule  above  explained.  Six  other  colleges  and  stations  have 
made  arrangemeuto  to  commence  the  same  experiments  this  season,  and 
three  others  are  experimenting  on  the  same  question  of  the  etiects  of 
nitrogenous  fertilizers,  though  on  somewhat  different  plans. 

Several  State  agricultural  reports  show  that  the  same  enterprise  is 
being  considered  by  other  official  bodies  as  well.  The  secretary  of  the 
Ohio  Board  of  Agriculture,  Mr.  Chamberlain,  in  his  last  report  devotes 
a  number  of  i)ages  to  accounts  of  the  nitrogen  experiments  referred  to, 
and  suggests  the  study  of  the  nitrogen  sux)ply  for  wheat  on  typical  soils 
in  his-  State.  The  last  report  of  the  commissioner  of  agriculture  of 
Virginia  recommends  similar  exj^eriments  in  that  State.  Several  other 
State  organizations  are  taking  steps  in  the  same  direction.  Besides  all 
these,  there  are  numbers  of  intelligent  farmers  throughout  the  whole 
country  who  are  able  and  will  be  more  than  willing  to  contribute  most 
efficient  work.  The  exi)eriment8  above  cited  suffice  to  i^rove  this  beyond 
all  doubt. 

With  the  assured  co-operation  of  so  many  representative  men,  includ- 
ing really  the  majority  of  the  best-known  experimenters  in  the  country, 
the  feasibility  of  co-ox^erative  experimenting  is  no  longer  a  questioji. 


APPENDIX. 


In  organizing  a  system  of  co-operative  experimenting,  to  which  the 
above  address  is  devoted,  one  great  need  is  an  official  and  influential 
center,  whence  suggestions  and  plans  for  work  may  emanate,  and  where 
reports  of  results  may  be  collated,  arranged,  and  published,  and  with 
whose  wise  aid  all  can  work  together.  By  the  espousal  of  the  enterprise 
by  the  Agricultural  Department  at  Washington,  under  its  present  very 
efficient  management,  this  want  is  most  happily  met.  And  nothing 
could  be  more  auspicious  for  such  a  union  between  the  department  and 
the  best  experimenters  of  the  country  than  the  discussions  and  action 
of  the  late  convention. 

PLANS  FOR  EXPERIMENTS. 

In  accordance  with  a  request  from  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture, 
I  have  undertaken,  with  the  aid  of  several  well-known  workers  in  this 
line,  to  prepare  some  i)lans  for  experiments ',  doing  so,  however,  with  the 
feeling  that  what  is  wanted  is  not  detailed  and  inelastic  schedules,  but 
rather,  outlines  which  each  experimenter  can  fill  in  as  seems  to  him  most 
advisable.  Every  man  knows  his  own  circumstances,  and  every  intelli- 
gent worker  has  valuable  ideas  of  his  own,  which  others  have  not.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  most  effective  system  will  be  one  which  will  enable 
each  to  develop  his  own  ideas,  while  we  all  work  together  and  contribute 
our  results  to  the  common  fund. 

KIND   OF   INVESTIGATIONS   THAT   ARE  NEEDED. 

To  get  the  most  complete  results  we  need : 

I.  Field  experiments,  to  include — 

a.  The  culture  of  plants  on  plots  of  land  treated  with  different  ma- 
nures, and  careful  weighings  and  measurements  of  produce. 

b.  Where  practicable,  chemical  and  x)hysical  studies  of  the  soil. 

c.  In  many  cases,  chemical  analyses  of  the  plants. 

II.  Pot  expeiiments,  in  which  the  conditions  can  be  definitely  known 
and  controlled,  and  the  needed  studies  of  soil  and  plants  be  carried  out 
with  equal  or  greater  convenience  and  accuracy. 

Indeed,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  ought  to  be  in  the  various  sections 
of  the  country  chemical  and  physical  surveys  of  the  land  in  the  behalf  of 
agriculture,  as  there  have  been  topographical  and  geological  surveys 
in  the  behalf  of  other  industries  and  interests.  And  in  fact  this  is 
precisely  the  direction  in  which  we  are  tending  in  this  experimental 
work. 

2  A  17 


18 

PLANS  FOR  FIELD   EXPERIMENTS. 

The  subjects  proposed  at  the  Washington  convention  for  co  ope  ?avive 
experiments  were : 

1.  The  supply  of  nitrogen  to  plants. 

2.  The  action  of  phosphoric  acid  in  different  forms  of  combination 
and  in  different  fertilizing  materials  upon  the  growth  of  i)lants. 

Practically,  so  far  as  field  experiments  are  concerned,  these  two  sub- 
jects reduce  themselves  to  the  study  of  the  action  of  nitrogenous  and 
phosphatic  fertilizers. 

The  first  thing,  then,  will  be  to  see  what  materials  are  to  be  employed. 

Since  similar  questions  regarding  potash  will  naturally  arise,  it  may 
be  well  to  include  brief  suggestions  regarding  potassic  fertilizers.  Of 
course  sulphuric  acid,  lime,  and  magnesia  could  be  treated  in  like  man- 
ner it  it  should  hereafter  become  desirable. 

QUANTITIES    OF  MATERIALS    TO   BE ,  USED. 

To  decide  what  quantities  of  materials  will  be  best  for  the  purpose  is 
not  easy,  because  of  the  lack  of  the  very  data  for  which  the  experiments 
are,  in  part,  to  be  made,  i^either  the  proportions  which  occur  in  any 
crops,  nor  those  in  farm  manures,  coidd  well  serve  as  a  standard.  Prob- 
ably the  best  plan  will  be  to  endeavor  to  select,  as  extremes,  the  smallest 
and  the  largest  quantities  that  general  experience  has  brought  into  ordi- 
nary use,  and  arrange  intermediate  quantities  at  proper  intervals  be- 
tween. 

Nitrogen. — A  dressing  of  450  pounds  of  nitrate  of  soda  per  acre  is 
jirobably  as  large  as  would  be  apt  to  be  used  in  this  country,  in  ordi- 
nary practice,  on  ordinary  crops.  At  the  same  time  it  is  no  more  than 
has  been  found  profitable  in  previous  nitrogen  experiments,  and  is  per- 
haps as  small  as  would  be  advisable  for  the  maximum.  At  IG  x^er  cent, 
it  would  contain  72  pounds  of  nitrogen. 

Three  hundred  pounds  of  an  ammoniated  superj)hosphate  with  3  per 
cent.,  or  9  i^ounds,  of  nitrogen,  is  not  an  unusual  dressing  per  acre.  As 
little  as  200  pounds,  with  only  C  pounds  of  nitrogen  per  acre,  is  a  com- 
mon quantity  for  cotton,  and  indeed,  for  other  crops,  when  applied  in 
the  hill  or  drill  or  as  a  supplement  to  other  manures.  Six  pounds  of 
nitrogen  is  a  very  small  quantity  for  an  acre  of  laud.  Twelve  pounds, 
which  would  be  contained  in  75  pounds  of  nitrate  of  soda,  would  seem 
to  be  little  enough.  StUl,  it  will  be  well  to  provide  for  as  small  an 
amount  as  is  ordinarily  used. 

In  arranging  the  rations  it  would  seem  best  to  make  the  difference 
between  the  smaller  rations  less  than  that  between  the  larger  ones.  In 
the  previous  nitrogen  experiments,  three  rations,  ''one-third,"  "two- 
thirds,"  and  "three-thirds,"  with  24,  48,  and  72  pounds  of  nitrogen  per 
acre,  respectively,  have  been  employed.  Prefacing  these  by  a  "one- 
twelfth"  ration  of  6  pounds,  and  a  "one-sixth"  ration  of  12  x^ounds,  we 
shall  have  a  series  of  five: 


19 
Sitrogen  rations. 

a.  Oue-twelftli  ration :  Nitrate  of  soda,  38  pounds,  witli  6  pounds 

of  nitrogen. 

b.  Oiie-sixth  ration:  Mtrate  of  soda,  75  pounds,  with   12  pounds 

nitrogen. 

c.  Oue  third  ration:    i^itrate  of  soda,  150  pounds,  with  24  pounds 

nitrogen. 

d.  Two-thirds  ration:   Nitrate  of  soda,  300  pounds,  with  48  pounds 

nitrogen. 
€.  Full  ration :  Nitrate  of  soda,  450  pounds,  with  72  pounds  nitro- 
gen. 

Of  this  list,  eitlier  all  or  part  may  be  used.  Thus  on  soils  or  for 
crops  where  smaller  quantities  are  in  place,  a.  h.  and  c.  could  be  em- 
ployed. Where  more  nitrogen  is  wanted,  c.  d.  and  e.  would  be  better. 
If,  as  is  not  impossible,  experience  should  show  that  the  smaller  rations 
are  too  small  to  be  useful,  it  Avill  be  a  very  simple  matter  to  omit  them. 

Phouphoric  acid. — One  hundred  pounds  of  a  superphosphate  with  IG 
per  cent.  P2  O5  is  as  little  as  would  be  often  used  on  an  acre,  while  600 
pounds  with  96  pounds  of  P2  O5  would  be  a  large  dressing.  In  view  of 
the  tact  that  general  experience  has  led  to  the  employing  of  much  larger 
quantities  of  phosphoric  acid  than  of  nitrogen,  the  proportions  within 
this  range  would  be  none  too  large  to  go  with  those  of  nitrogen  sug- 
gested. Doubtless  a  series  of  four  rations  arranged  as  below  would 
sufidce. 

Fhophoric  acid  rations. 

a.  Cne-sixth  ration :  100  pounds  superphosphate  with  16  pounds 

phosphoric  acid. 
h.  One-third  ration :  200  jDounds  superphosphate  with  32  pounds 

phosphoric  acid. 

c.  Two-thirds  ration  :  400  pounds  superphosphate  with  64  pounds 

phosphoric  acid. 

d.  Full  ration :  600  pounds  sux^erphosphate  with  96  pounds  phos- 

phoric acid. 

Fotash. — Many  of  the  popular  fertilizing  mixtures  are  calculated  to 
supply  very  small  quantities  of  potash,  not  over  17  pounds  per  acre, 
while  200  pounds  of  muriate  of  potash  are  often  used  for  a  dressing. 
Taking  these  as  extremes  and  dividing  as  before  we  shall  have — 

Potash  rations. 

a.  One-sixth  ration :  33  iDounds  muriate  of  potash  with  17  pounds 

potash. 
1).  One-third  ration:  67  pounds  muriate  of  potash  with  33  pounds 

potash. 


20 

c.  Two  thirds  ration :  133  pounds  muriate  of  potash  with  67  pounds 

potash. 

d.  Full  ration  :  200  pounds  muriate  of  potash  with  100  pounis  pot- 

ash, 

Puttingr  the  above  forms  together  we  have  rations  as  follows  : 


d 

o 

3 

o 

^ 

CD 

P. 

e^ 

o 

G 

o 

i-.-a 

a 

O 

a, 

V  '^ 

fci/ 

J 

^ 

g 

P. 

3 
3 

c 

1 

o 

P4 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

38 

6 

Oue-sixtli  ration 

75 

ino 

33 

12 

16 

17 

150 
300 
450 

200 
400 
600 

67 
i:(3 
200 

24 
48 
72 

32 
64 
96 

33 

67 

100 

. 

DUPLICATION   OP   TESTS. 

Avery  great,  if  not  the  greatest,  obstacle  to  the  success  of  field  experi- 
ments is  the  unevenness  of  soils.  The  variations  in  the  produce  of  dif- 
ferent jdots  of  apparently  uniform  land  under  the  same  treatment  is 
often  very  surprising.  An  experiment  in  which  duplicates  agree  as 
closely  as  could  be  desired  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Cases 
in  which  the  differences  betwesn  plots  treated  alike  are  greater  than 
between  those  treated  differently,  are^  if  anything,  more  comjuou. 

To  get  around  this  difficulty,  numerous  devices  are  em])loyed.  One  is 
to  test  the  uuiformity  of  the  plots  by  treating  all  alike  the  first  year,  and, 
if  they  vary  materially,  to  either  attempt  to  average  duplicates  so  as  to 
make  the  differences  counterbalance,  or  to  allow  for  tlie  differences  in 
computing  the  final  results.  One  serious  objection  to  either  of  these 
plans  is  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  cause  of  the  variation  and  to  whether 
it  will  be  constant  in  succeeding  years. 

Another  plan  consists  in  making  the  plots  long  and  narrow,  so  as  to 
equalize  the  differences.  This,  though  often  successful,  is  not  always 
so.  The  ideal  method  vrould  be  to  test  the  experimental  areas  by  uni- 
form treatment  for  a  series  of  years  until  temporary  causes  of  irregu- 
larity, such  as  came  from  manuring,  tillage-,  cropping,  «&c.,  were  elimin- 
ated, and  to  use  for  exi^eiimeut  only  such  as  prove  to  be  intrinsically 
uniform. 

Where  feasible,  this  latter  plan  is  certainly  to  be  recommended.  But 
if  we  are  to  begin  an  experiment  at  once,  doubtless  the  best  way  is  to 
use  small  ])lots  and  duplicate  the  trials  by  using  the  same  materials  on 
several.  This  duplicating  will  test  the  uniformity  and  reliability  of  the 
whole  experiment,  and  give  averages  which,  when  no  untoward  circum- 
stances prevent,  are  pretty  sure  to  be  fairly  satisfactory  and  are  often 
perfectly  so. 


21 

SIZE   OF  EXPERIjMENTAL  PLOTS. 

Ordinarily,  plots  of  eight  square  rods,  one-twentieth  acre,  each,  seem 
as  satisfactory  as  any.  In  most  cases,  two  plots  of  one-twentieth 
wonld  be  preferable  to  one  of  one-tenth  acre.  At  least,  such  is  the 
impression  left  on  my  mind  after  looking  over  the  reports  of  several 
hundred  experiments  sent  me  for  examination.  Before  this  exjDerience 
I  was  inclined  to  larger  areas,  but  I  have  been  surprised  at  the  uniform- 
ity of  small  plots,  when  they  are  long  and  narrow.  Some  of  the  most 
satisfactory  field  experiments  have  been  on  plots  of  only  four  square 
rods.  It  is  very  common  to  leave  a  number  of  plots  unmanured  to  test 
the  uniformity  of  the  soil,  but  it  is  a  question  whether  this  purpose  is 
not  better  served  by  duplicating  manured  plots,  and  using  not  more  than 
two  or  three  unmanured  for  an  ordinary  experiment.  Thus,  for  the  nitro- 
gen experiments,  the  most  satisfactory  plan  I  have  found  has  been  to 
leave  one  unmanured  plot  on  each  side  of  the  experimental  field,  and 
to  frequently  duplicate  the  "basal  mixture"  of  superphosphate  and 
potash  salt. 

SPACES  BETWEEN   THE  EXPERIMENTAL,  PLOTS. 

Another  frequent  cause  of  inaccuracy  in  field  experiments  with  fer- 
tilizers is  the  extension  of  the  roots  of  the  plants  of  one  plot  into  the  soil 
of  the  next  one,  so  that  the  plants  feed  upon  their  neighbors'  fertilizers. 
The  roots  of  corn,  for  instance,  extend  laterally  several  feet,  and,  un- 
less something  is  done  to  prevent^^the  plants  may  get  so  much  material 
that  does  not  belong  to  them  as  to  vitiate  the  results  of  the  experiments. 
The  yield  on  an  unmanured  plot  between  two  manured  ones  is  often 
much  larger  than  on  another  unmanured  plot  whose  plants  have  not 
the  fertilizers  close  at  hand  to  draw  upon.  The  best  plan  to  obviate 
this  is  to  leave  unmanured  strips  between  the  experimental  plot  so  wide 
that  the  roots  will  not  reach  across  them.  The  difficulty  can  be  helloed, 
of  course,  by  plowing  between  the  plots  deep  enough  to  cut  the  roots. 

NITEOGEN  EXPERIMENTS. 

In  planning  these  experiments  we  need  to  consider  the  questions  to 
be  studied,  the  forms  and  quantities  of  nitrogen  to  be  used,  and  tlie 
most  fitting  arrangement  for  the  experiments.  The  following  details 
naturally  suggest  themselves : 

A. — Questions  especially  needing  Study. 

I.  The  action  of  nitrogen  in  different  forms  and  amounts  upon  the 

growth  of  plants  under  varying  conditions  of  crop,  soil, 
climate,  season,  &c. 

II.  The  feeding  capacities  of  different  plants  as  related  to  nitrogen,  i.  e., 

their  capacities  for  providing  themselves  with  nitrogen 


22 

from  natural  sources,  and  for  utilizing  that  furnished  in 
the  fertilizers,  in  so  far  as  these  capacities  are  indicated 
by  effects  of  the  nitrogenous  materials  ux^on  their  growth. 

B. — Forms  and  Amounts  of  Niteooen  and  I>riTRoaENOus  Fertil- 
izers. 

I.  The  most  important  forms  of  nitrogen  are : 

1.  Nitric  acid. 

2.  Ammonia. 

3.  Organic  nitrogen. 

II.  Among  the  kinds  of  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen  in  these  forms, 

the  following  are  important : 

1.  Nitric  acid.  3.  Organic  nitrogen. 

a.  Nitrate  of  soda.  a.  Dried  blood. 

1).  Nitrate  of  potash.  6.  Meat  scrap. 

2.  Ammonia.  c.  Fish  scrap  and  fish  guano. 

a.  Sulphate  of  ammonia.  d.  Leather  scraps. 

III.  Quantities,  as  above   named,  to  wit,  "one-twelfth,"  "one-sixth," 

"one-third,"  "two-thirds,"  and  "full  rations,"  or  G,  12,  24, 
48,  and  72  pounds  per  acre. 

DETAILED  PLANS. 

In  the  account  of  nitrogen  experinients  above  (pages  6,  8,  and  0)  are 
schedules  of  the  kinds  and  quantities  of  fertilizing  materials  there  em- 
l^loyed.  Judging  from  the  results  of  past  experience,  however,  those 
schedules  would  be  improved  by  slightly  altering  the  quantities  so  as  to 
make  them  conform  with  the  rations  just  named,  and  by  enlarging  the 
list  of  nitrogenous  fertilizers  to  be  tested. 

Kinds  of  Nitrogenous  Fertilizers. 

The  following  will  doubtless  be  to  the  purpose : 

1.  For  nitric  acid,  nitrate  of  soda,  96  per  cent,  purity,  with  16  per  cent, 
nitrogen. 

2.  For  ammonia,  sulphate  of  ammonia,  with  21  per  cent,  nitrogen. 

3.  For  organic  nitrogen. 

a.  Dried  blood  (steam  dried),  with  11  per  cent,  nitrogen. 
1).  Meat  scrap,  azotin,  with  11  per  cent,  nitrogen. 

c.  Fish  guano,  with  8  per  cent,  nitrogen. 

d.  Leather  scraps  (finely  pulverized),  with  7  per  cent,  nitrogen. 

4.  For  nitric  acid,  ammonia,  arid  organic  nitrogen  together,  "nitiogen 

mixture,"  consisting  of  nitrate  of  soda,  16  per  cent,  nitrogen; 
sulphate  of  ammonia,  21  per  cent,  nitrogen,  and  dried  blood 
11  i)er  cent,  nitrogen  in  equal  iiarts,  and  containing  16  per  cent,, 
nitrogen. 


23 


Quantities  op  ISTitrogenous  Fertilizers. 

We  may  plan  for  each  nitrogenous  fertilizer  a  "group"  with  rations, 
as  above  suggested.  Thus  we  may  have  nitrogen  groups  with  quanti- 
ties per  acre  as  ioUows : 

Nitrogen  Bationa. 


nation. 


NiTEATE  OF  SODA 

Gkoup  


One  twelfth 
One-sixth  . . 
One-tliird... 
Two-thii'ds . 
Pull.. 


Nitrate  of 
soda. 


Pounds. 

38 

75 
150 
300 
450 


Sulphate  of  am- 
monia Group . 


Eation. 


One-twelfth... 

One-sixth 

One-third 

Two-thirds 

Full 


Sulphate  of 
ammonia. 


Poundg, 

29 

57 
114 
228 
343 


Dried     bloou 
Group ' 


Eation. 


One-twelfth 
One-sixth  . . 
One-third  . . 
Two-thirds. 
Full 


Dried 
blood. 


Pounds. 
55 
110 
220 
440 
(>«0 


NiTEOGEX      MIX 

TURE  Group.. 


J 


Eation. 


One-twelfth 
One-sixth  .. 
One-third  . . 
Two-thirds . 
Full 


Nitrog  6  n 
mixture. 


Pounds. 

56 

75 
150 
300 
450 


ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE  EXPERIMENTS. 

In  this  way  such  materials  as  may  be  most  desirable  can  be  selected 
for  each  exi)eriment,  and  for  each  a  group  be  used  with  all  or  part  of 
the  rations  suggested.  Future  experience  must  show  what  quantities 
will  be  best.  Probably,  for  ordin#ry  crops  in  the  North,  the  three  larg- 
est rations  will  be  well.  In  the  South,  for  cotton,  very  likely  the  smaller 
will  be  preferable.  At  any  rate,  this  flexibility  of  plan  allows  fair  lati- 
tude of  detail,  and  at  the  same  time  secures  the  uniformity  needed  for 
the  tabulation  and  comparison  of  different  experiments. 

In  some  cases  it  will  be  desirable  to  use  the  nitrogenous  fertilizers 
alone.  In  the  majority  of  cases,  however,  the  full  effect  of  the  nitrogen 
will  not  l)e  manifested  unless  some  other  materials  are  added.  Generally 
speaking,  the  experiment  will  be  most  satisfactory  with  "  complete  fertil- 
izers," such  as  can  be  made  by  adding  the  nitrogenous  materials  to  a 
mixture  of  superphosphate  and  potash  salt,  which  may  be  designated 
as  "mineral  fertilizers"  or  "mixed  minerals."  For  these,  the  two-thirds 
rations,  400  pounds  of  superphosjjhate  and  133  pounds  of  muriate  of 
potash,  will  probably  be  adapted  to  a  larger  proportion  of  the  soils  and 
crops  than  the  mixture  of  300  xjounds  of  superphosphate  and  150  pounds 
of  muriate  of  potash,  used  in  the  former  nitrogen  experiments.  Taking 
the  basal  mixture  named,  and  adding  the  several  rations  of  nitrate  of 
soda  we  shall  have  a  "Xitrate  of  Soda  Group"  of  five  mixtures,  each 
mixture  containing  the  "mixed  minerals"  with  a  nitrate  of  soda  ration 
as  below : 

Nitrate  of  Soda  Group: 

Mixed  minerals  with  nitrate  of  soda,  one-twelfth  ration. 
Mixed  minerals  with  nitrate  of  soda,  one-sixth  ration. 


24 

Mixed  minerals  with  nitrate  of  soda,  one-tliird  ration. 
Mixed  minerals  with  nitrate  of  soda,  two- thirds  ration. 
Mixed  minerals  with  nitrate  of  soda,  full  ration. 
The  amount  per  acre  and  the  percentages  of  the  several  ingredients  in 
the  nitrogen  mixture  group,  for  instance,  would  be  as  follows : 


I'ertilizing  materials. 

Ingredients. 

U^itrogen  mixture  group. 

<1>  o 

6  i=< 

4o 
|i 

c  ft 

to 

3  ? 

T  ft 

=  S 
ftM 

ca    . 

a 

s 

ft 

4i 
g 

a" 

c_2 

ll 

-5  3 

2§ 

"k  a 

6 

.a 

ea 
"o 

1 

ia^ 

%^ 

t^; '" 

Fi  ^ 

e-, 

S 

fn 

Ph 

;2; 

One-twelfth  ration 

400 

133 

38 

C4 

67 

6 

11.2 

11.7 

1.5 

400 

133 

C4 

67 

12 

10.5 

11.0 

2.0 

400 

133 

150 

64 

67 

24 

9.3 

9.8 

3.5 

400 
400 

133 

300 

430 

64 
64 

67 
67 

48 
72 

7.6 
6.5 

8.0 
6.8 

5  8 

7.3 

PItELI3IIi;AE,Y  GROUP. 

The  experiment  will  be  much  more  satisfactory  if  we  know  the  effects 
of  the  superphosphate,  potash,  salt,  and  nitrogenous  materials  sepa- 
rately, and,  inferentially,  the  capacity  of  the  soil  to  supply  the  phos- 
phoric acid  and  potash  as  well  as  the  nitrogen.  To  this  end  we  may 
use  the  materials  separately,  and  two  by  two,  as  has  been  done  in  pre- 
vious experiments,  and  is  shown  in  |;he  schedule  beyond.  In  the  ex- 
periments described  above  the  nitrogen  of  the  preliminary  groups  has 
been  supplied  in  either  nitrate  of  soda  or  "  nitrogen  mixture."  Though 
experience  has  shown  very  little  difference,  probably  the  mixture  will 
be  "the  safer,  and  accordingly  it  is  here  recommended. 

As  urged  above,  the  many  sources  of  error  in  field  experiments  make 
duplicates  very  imjjortant.  This  may  be  effected  by  repeating  the  nitro- 
g£n  groups,  in  which  opportunity  is  taken  to  test  the  different  forms  of 
nitrogen,  and  by  putting  the  mixed  minerals  on  each  side  of  each  nitrogen 
group,  thus  testing  the  uniformity  of  the  soil,  replacing  the  unmanured 
plots,  and  showing  more  accurately  the  effects  of  the  nitrogen. 

To  recapitulate  briefly,  our  experimental  fertilizers,  as  thus  planned, 
will  be  arranged  in  grou^js,  thus  : 

C-r>    ,.    .  r~<  T-     1  1      -i    IP  )  Thus  testing  the  effects  of  inffrediprts 

S  Prehinmnry  Group.  Each  hy  itself,  /     a,.parately-and  capacity  of  soil  to  sup- 
\     and  two  by  two.  ^     ply  them: 

C  Nitrate  of   soda  Group, 
acid  in  nitrate  of  sckIm. 


Partial  fertilizers . 


S'itrogen  as  nitiicl 


Complete  Fertilizers. 


I  Sulphate  of  ammonia  Group.  Nitrogen  as  | 
J      anunonia  in  sulphate  of  ammonia.  '^ 

^  Dried   blood    Group.       Nitrogen   as    organic  f 

nitrogen  in  dried  blood.  I 

Nitrogen    mixture  Group.     Nitrogen  in  the  | 

three  fonas  named  above.  J 


Nitrogen  in  one-twelfth,  one- 
sixth,  one-third,  two-thirds, 
and  full  rations. 


Other  groups  containing  meat  scrap,  fish  guano,  Peruvian  guano, 
leather  scrap,  &c.,  can  be  employed  at  the  discrefon  of  the  experi- 
menter.    When  desired,  as  may  be  the  case  with  cotton,  for  instance, 


25 

half  tie  quantities  maybe  used,  or  the  same  quantities  distributed  over 
double  the  area.  The  preliminary  groups  can  be  omitted  if  necessary, 
the  nitrogen  groups  used  without  the  basal  mixture,  and  a  smaller  list 
of  rations  used  in  each  group,  as  may  be  desirable  in  each  case.  Two 
nitrogen  sets,  which  can  be  obtained  ready  for  use,  are  described  beyond. 

PHOSPHORIC  ACID  EXPERIMENTS. 

In  devising  plans  for  these  experiments  we  have  to  consider  what 
questions  are  to  be  studied  and  what  compounds  of  phosphoric  acid  are 
to  be  employed. 

-    A. — Questions  to  be  studied. 

The  following  may  be  regarded,  at  the  outset  at  least,  as  among  the 
more  important: 

I.  The  action  of  phosphoric  acid  in  different  forms  and  amounts  upon 
the  growth  of  i)lants  under  different  conditions  of  crop,  soil,  climate, 
season,  &c.,  e.  g., 

1.  Soluble  vs.  precipitated. 

2.  Soluble  Ts.  insoluble. 

3.  Effects  of  fineness  of  pulverization  upon  the  availability  of  in- 

soluble phosphoric  acid  in  bone,  rock  phosphate,  &c. 

4.  Bone  vs.  mineral  phosphate. 

5.  Raw  bone  vs.  boiled  bone;  L  e.,  bone  from  which  gelatine  has  been 

extracted. 

II.  The  feeding  capacities  of  different  plants  as  related  to  phosphoric 
acid,  i.  €.,  their  capabilities  of  availing  themselves  of  the  supplies  of 
phosphoric  acid  at  their  disposal  in  the  soil,  and  in  fertilizers,  in  so 
far  as  their  capabilities  are  indicated  by  the  observed  effects  of  the 
phosphoric  acid  compounds. 

B.— FOKMS    AND     AMOUNTS    OF    PHOSPHORIC   ACID    AND   PHOSPHATIC 

COMPOUNDS. 

The  following  list  seems  complete  enough  for  the  present  purpose : 

I.  Forms  of  phosphoric  acid  : 

1.  Soluble. 

2.  Precipitated. 

3.  Insoluble. 

II.  Kinds  of  phosphatic  compounds : 

1.  Bone. 

a.  Raw. 
h.  Steamed. 

c.  Bone  black. 

d.  Bone  ash. 

2.  Phosphatic  guanos. 

a.  Cura9oa,  &c. 


26 


3.  Mineral  or  rock  pliosphate. 
a.  Soiitli  Carolina. 
&.  Navassa. 
c.  Apatite,  »&c. 

III.  Grades  of  fineness:  The  grades  of  fineness  will  naturally  depend 
upon  what  the  market  affords.    We  might  use,  for  instance : 

1.  Coarse. 

2.  Medium. 

3.  Fine. 

IV.  Quantities  of  phosphoric  acid: 

Each  of  the  several  forms  may  be  used  in  different  "  rations,"  the 
several  rations  making  a  group,  as  in  the  nitrogen  experiments. 

DETAILED  PLANS. 

For  the  specific  materials  to  furnish  the  phosphoric  acid  in  the  soluble 
and  precipitated  forms,  the  following  are  X3erhaps  as  well  fitted  for  the 
puriiose  as  any.     Of  course  others  will  suggest  themselves. 

1.  Soluble  phosphoric  acid : 

a.  Dissolved  bone  black  with  16  per  cent.  P2O5. 
h.  High-grade  sux)erphosphate  with  32  per  cent.  P2O5. 
Of  the  above,  perhaps  {a)  will  serve  best  to  begin  with. 

2.  Precipitated  phosphoric  acid.     This  may  consist  of — 

a.  High-grade  superi^hosphate  with  equal  weights  of  chalk,  making 
a  precipitated  phosphate  with  16  per  cent.  P2O5. 

3.  Insoluble  x>hosphoric  acid.     For  this,  bone,  phosphatic  guanos,  and 

mineral  or  rock  phosphates  will  be  in  order.    Bone  and  South  Caro- 
lina phosphate  are  perhaps  the  most  important  at  present: 
a.  Fine  bone  dust  (mesh,  40.)  from  steamed  or  raw  bone  with  25  per 

cent.  P2O5. 
6.  South  Carolina  phosphate  with  25  per  cent.  P2O5. 

QUANTITIES  OF  PHOSPHORIC  ACID. 

As  already  suggested  we  may  arrange  for  each  of  the  phosphatic  com- 
pounds a  group  of  four  rations.  Below  are  exami)les  with  quantities 
per  acre : 


a 

c 

& 

^ 

p   . 

r- 

-OS 

<D^ 

siA 

>   S 

IS* 

."S  o 

a 

O^ 

a 

P-§ 

.2 

01 

o 

•sa 

^ 

0) 

c4 

c4 

M 

M 

P 

M 

^ 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Superphosphate  J 

a.  One-sixth 

h.  One-third 

100 

200 

Precipitated  [ 

PHOSPH  ATE^^ 

Group. 

a.  One-sixth 

6.  One-thml 

300 
200 

Group.               1 

c.   Tsvo-thirds . .. 

400 

c.   Two-thirds.... 

4«0 

1 

d.  Full 

CUO 

d.  Pull 

GOO 

V. 

•27 


Eation. 

Eation 

1 

02 

South  Carolina  f 

SUPEUPHOS--; 

PHATE  Geo  UP.    'j 

d.  One-sixtli 

h.  One-thiiol 

c.  Two-thirds  — 
a.  Full....... 

Pounds. 
133 
267 
533 
800 

Steamed    Bone  J 
Group.              ] 

a.  One-sixth 

6.  One-third 

c.  Two-thii'ds  ... 

d.  Full 

Pounds. 

67 

133 

267 

400 

The  effects  of  fineuess  of  pulverization  may  be  tested  by  sucli  groujjs 
as  these : 


Fine,  medium, 
and  coause 
Bone  Dust 
Gkoup. 


Grade  of  fineness. 


Fine 

Medium 
Coarse . . 


Ground 
bone. 


Pounds. 
400 
400 
400 


Fine,  medium, 
AND  coarse  S.  1 
C.  Phosphate  ( 
'Group. 


Grade  of  fineness. 


Fine 

Medium 
Coarse.. 


Phosphate. 


Pounds. 
400 
400 
400 


The  details  of  quantities  per  acr®  and  i^ercentages  of  the  Superphos. 
phate  group,  for  instance,  will  be  : 


Fertilizing  materials. 

Ingredients. 

Superphosphate  Group. 

V.  s 

'as 
ft 

S  to 

11 

.a    . 

1' 

.a  o 

m  !-< 
^^ 

i^  a 

O  3 

3  ft 
m 

Q 

S 
O     . 

ft9 

ai 

o  ft 

ft 

§g 
^§ 

1 

12 

C3  o 

.2  2 

O   ft 

1 

-«  ft 

o 

ft 

g 

fcJC 

o 

1 
ft 

1 

ft  ■ 
1  . 

is  ■ 

ft 

o 

A,  One-sixth  ration 

150 
150 
150 
150 

133 
133 
133 
133 

100 
200 
400 
600 

24 
24 
24 
24 

67 
67 
67 
67 

16 
32 
64 
96 

6.3 

5.0 
3.5 
2.7 

17.3 

13.9 

9.8 

7.6 

4.2 
6  7 

C,  IVo-thirds  ration 

I)  full  ration 

9.4 
10  9 

That  is  to  say,  the  Superphosphate  Group  would  thus  consist  of  four 
mixtures.  Each  of  these  mixtures  will  contain  a  "basal  mixture"  witn 
nitrogen  and  potash  each  in  f  ration  (see  page  20).  To  this  basal  mixture 
the  super-phosphate  is  added  in  successiv^e  amounts,  from  "  one-sixth  ra- 
titon"  to  "full  ration,"  or  from  16  to  96  pounds  per  acre. 

SULPHATE   OF   LIME    GEOUP. 

Since  more  or  less  of  the  effect  of  the  superphosphate  may  be  due  to 
its  sulphate  of  lime,  a  check  trial  with  plaster  as  provided  in  the  schedule 
on  page  31  may  be  advisable. 

The  explanation  of  the  nitrogen  experiment  will  apply,  mutatis  mu- 
tandis, to  the  phosphoric  acid  exx)eriment.    The  idea  is  to  so  arrange  the 


28 


materials  that  each  experimenter  may  select  groups  or  parts  of  groups 
at  his  discretion  and  thus  make  up  such  an  experiment  as  will  be  most 
to  the  purpose  in  the  conditions  under  which  he  works. 

The  following  list  of  materials  and  groups  includes  perhaps  the  most 
important,  and  suggests  a  schedule  of  experimental  fertilizers: 


t  r>    T    •   „       n  ^        „„-.!,  i„  ,-+„„if  ■)  Thus  testing  the  effects  of  iDgredients 
Partial  Fertilizers  ...  J  ^"^^^^^f  L^™"P'  ^'''^^  ^^  '*'"'^^'  f     sepaiatelyrand  capacity  of  soil  to  sup- 


and  two  bv  two. 


)     ply  them.' 

f  Soluble  phosphoric  acid  Group.  "| 

I  Precipitated  phosphoric  acid  Group. 
Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  Group.    Steamed  bone. 
Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  Group.    Eaw  lione.  1, 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  Group.    S.  C.  phosphate.  f 

Complete  Fertilizers.  ]  ^"pifsp^i^e".  """"^  ^'''"^'  ^^°^'  ^''''^  ^'''"^'    ^'  ^'  '"^''''"  | 
I  Etc.,  etc.  J 


Phosphoric  acid  in 
one -sixth  ration, 
one -third  ration, 
two-thirds  ration, 
and  full  lation. 


Kaw  bono  Group. 
South  Carolina  phosphate  Group. 
Etc.,  etc.,  etc. 


?  Different  grades  of 
I  fineness. 


teCHBDULES  FOR  EXPERIMENTS. 

While  experimenters  will  arrange  their  experiments  at  discretion,  it 
has  seemed  to  me  desirable  to  suggest  schedules,  and,  if  practicable,  to 
make  arrangements  to  assist  them  in  procuring  the  materials  with  the 
least  trouble  and  expense.  I  have,  therefore,  drawn  up  schedules  for 
three  sets  of  experimental  fertilizers,  as  follows: 

The  first,  ^^  Nitrogen  Set  Wo.  1,"  is  nearly  the  same  as  used  by  a  num- 
ber of  gentlemen  last  season,  Nitrogen  is  supi:)lied  as  nitric  acid, 
ammonia,  and  organic  nitrogen,  in  three  groups  with  three  rations,  ^-,  §, 
and  full  ration,  in  each.  The  set  requires  18  plots  for  the  fertilizers, 
which,  with  two  unmanured,  would  make  20  plots,  or,  with  one-twentieth 
acre  plots,  one  acre  of  land,  for  the  experiment.  With  spaces  between 
the  plots  a  larger  area  will  be  needed. 

NITEOGEN  SET  NO.  1. 


Materials. 


1.  Nitrate  of  soda,  one-third  ration 

2.  Superphosphate 

3.  Muriate  of  potash 

.    C  Nitrate  of  soda,  one-third  ration 

Preliminary  Group  . .  -^        {  Superphosphate 

I    -    S  Nitrate  of  soda,  one-third  ration 

■  J  Muriate  of  potasii 

I   «■  {  ^Se'TS-1.  }  ^^-^  ---^^''-  I 

(  n   S  Mixed  minerals,  as  No.  6 

■  I  Nitrate  of  soda,  one-third  ration 

T.T.. ,    „p„„,i„rc o    C  Mixed  minerals,  as  No.  () 

Nitrate  of  soda  Group  ,    8.  ^  ^.^^^^^^  ^^  soda,  two-thirds  ration 

q    5  Mixed  minerals,  as  No.  6 

[     ■  I  Nitrate  of  soda,  full  i ation 

Qa.  Mixed  minerals,  as  No.  G 


Founds. 
7.5 

20.0 
G.7 
7.5 

20.0 
7.5 
6.7 

20.0 
6.7 

26.7 
7.5 
20.  7 
15.0 
26.7 
22.5 

26.7 


Pounds. 
15.0 
40.0 
i:.  3 
15.0 
40.0 
15.0 
33.3 
40.0 
13.3 

53.  3 
15.  0 
53.  3 
30.  0 
53.  3 
45.0 

53.3 


29 


NITROGEN  SET  No.  1— Continued. 


Amounts. 

Materials. 

|3 

o  S  o 

p  s>  S 

(-  a  CI 

15 

«  O  5, 

ill 

Pounds. 
26.7 
5.6 
26.7 
11.3  . 
26.7 
16.8 

26.7 

26.7 
11.0 
26.7 
22.0 
26.7 
33.0 

26.7 

Pounds. 
53  3 

11.3 

53.3 

22.5 

53.3 

33.7 

53.3 

53.3 

1         ;  Diied  blood,  one-third  ration 

22.0 

.„.,,,       -,   ^                    1  ,  ,     <  Mivpfl  ITlinnI■nl^^,  hm  N.i  fi 

53  3 

Dried  blood  Group  -  -  <j  14.  |  1^^^,^^  i,i„oj_  two-thirds  ration '.V 

4i  U 

53.3 

j.^"'  i  Dried  blood,  full  ration.'. 

66.0 

6c.  Mixed  minerals,  as  No.  6 

53.3 

.  The  following,  ^^  Nitrogen  Set  No.  2,"  is  simpler,  containing  only  the 
preliminary  group,  and  a  nitrogen  mixture  group  with  five  rations,  and 
one  extra  "  mixed  minerals."  It  has  the  advantage  of  greater  simplicity, 
and  of  testing  the  eflfects  of  smaller  quantities  of  nitrogen,  but  has  the 
disatl vantage  of  not  duplicating  the  nitrogen  tests.  It  can  be  greatly 
improved  by  duplicating  the  "nitrogen  mixture"  group,  which,  with  an 
extra  "mixed  minerals,"  will  make  18  fertilizers.  With  one-twentieth 
acre  plots,  this  would  require  an  acre,  and  make  an  excellent  experiment. 

NITROGEN  SET  NO.  2. 


Materials. 


Amounts. 


Preliminary  Group. ..  ■ 


f  1.     IJitrogen  mixture,  one-third  ration 

2.     Superphosphate 

Muriate  of  potash 

Nitrogen  mi.\ture,  one-third  ration 

Superphosphate 

Nitrogen  mixture,  one-third  ration 

Muriate  of  potash 

g    (  Superphosi)hate 

■  \  Muriate  of  potash 


3. 


5. 


Nitrogen 
Group. 


,-    C  Mixed  minerals 

\  Nitrogen  mixture,  one-twelfth  ration 

g   (  Mixed  minerals 

I  Nitrogen  mixture,  one-sixth  ration 

g   (  Mixed  minerals    ... 

I  Nitrogen  mixture,  one-third  ration 

,„    ^  Mixed  minerals 

)  Nitrogen  mixture,  two-thirds  ration 

,-,    C  Mixed  minerals  ..  

■  \  Nitrogen  mixture,  full  ration 


6a.  Mixed  minerals. 


30 

The  following  specifications  are  intended  for  use  in  ordering  the  fer- 
tilizers : 

Specifications  for  nitrogen  sets:  Materials  to  he  weighed  and  mixed 
with  greatest  possible  care  and  accuracy,  pnt  in  bags,  and  each  bag 
furnished  with  a  label  stating  number  and  contents  per  schedule.  Min- 
imum percentages  as  follows :  Nitrate  of  soda,  16  per  cent,  nitrogen ; 
sulphate  of  ammonia,  21  per  cent,  nitrogen;  dried  blood,  11  per  cent, 
mtrogen;  superphosphate  (dissolved  bone  black)  15  per  cent,  soluble 
and  16  per  cent,  total  phosphoric  acid;  muriate  of  potash,  50  per  cent, 
potash. 

PHOSPHOEIC   ACID    SET. 

This  tests  the  action  of  soluble  phosphoric  acid,  in  dissolved  bone 
black,  precipitated  phosphoric  acid  in  a  mixture  of  high  grade  super- 
phosphate from  bone  and  chalk,  and  insoluble  ijhosphoric  acid  in  bone 
from  which  the  larger  part  of  the  organic  matter  has  been  removed.  A 
sulphate  of  lime  group  is  added  as  a  test  of  the  effect  of  the  sulphuric 
acid  and  lime  of  the  superphosphates.  This  includes  25  fertilizers, 
which  with  two  unmanured  plots  would  require  27  plots,  or  if  each  plot 
is  one-twentieth  acre,  a  little  over  1^  acres,  and  more  if  unmanured  strips 
are  left  between  the  rows.  The  set  can  be  reduced  to  21  by  omitting 
the  sulphate  of  lime  group,  and  to  18  by  using  only  three  rations  in  each 
phosphoric  acid  group. 

PHOSPHORIC  ACID  SET. 


Materials. 


Preliminary  Group..  < 


NitrosfeTi  mixture  . 

Superphosphate  . . . 

Muriate  of  potash  . 
(  Nitrogen  mixture . 
I  Superphospliate. 


C  Muriate  of  potash 
^  Sn  ■         • 


perphosphaie 

Nitrogen  mixture 

Muriate  of  potash 


>  Baaal  mixture  5 


^•r 


Basal  mixture 

Dissolved  bone  black  , 

p    <j  Basal  mixtuie , 

Soluble     phosphoric-  j        (  Dissolved  bone  black  . 

acid  Group.  ^  ^    C  Basal  mixture  . .    

I  Dissolved  bone  black  . 

-j->    (  Basal  mixture 

■  \  Dissolved  bone  black  . 

Fa.   Basal  mixture 


f  A    ^  Basal  mixture 

I      ■<  Precipitated  phosphate. 

p    ^  Basal  mixture    

Precipitated  _ph  os-  ',       i  Precipitated  phosphate  . 


phoric-acid  Group.    1  p   j  Basarmixture 


Precipitated  phosphate. 

I  jy    S  Basal  mixture 

I     ■  (  Precipitated  phosphate. 

Fb.    Basal  mixture 


Amounts. 


Oj    i,    O 


Pounds. 
7.5 

2(».  0 
6.7 
7.5 

20.0 
6.7 

20.0 
7.  5 
6.7 

14.2 
5.  0 
14.2 
10.0 
14.2 
20.0 
14.2 
30.0 

14.2 

14.2 
.5.0 
14.2 
10.0 
14.2 
20.0 
14.2 
30.0 

14.2 


=2S 


o  oft 
O 


Pounds. 
15.0 
40.0 
]3.  3 
15.0 
40,0 
13.3 
40.0 
15.0 
13.3 

28.3 
10.0 
28.3 
20.  0 
28.3 
40.0 
2,S  3 
60.0 

28.3 

28.3 
10.0 
28.  3 
20.0 
28  3 
40.0 
28.3 
00.0 

28.3 


31 


PHOSPHOEIC  ACID  SET— Continued. 


Amounts. 


Materials. 


'  *r  o 

o.S  iJ 


'.    C  Casal  mixture - 

)  Bone  dust 

|,    C  Basal  mixture  . 

Steamed  bone  Group.  <j       J  Ea'sal  mixture". 

"  ^-  )  Couedust 

j-x  5  lir.sal  mixture  . 
J  Bone  dust 


Tc.    Basal  mixture  . 


Sulphate 
Group. 


of     lime 


I  Basal  mixture  . 

;  Plaster 

I  Basal  mixture  . 
!  Piaster 

Basal  mixture  . 

Plaster  


Fd.   Basal  mixture. 


Pounds. 

28.3 
]0.  0 
28.3 
20.0 
28.3 
40.0 
28.3 
CO.O 

28.3 

28.3 
7.5 
28.3 
15.0 
28.3 
22.5 

28.3 


Besides  the  above  set,  groups  like  the  following  may  be  employed. 


Materials. 


South  Caroliua  super- 
phosphate Group. 


South  Carolina  phos-  ) 


ph:ite  Gioup. 


)c. 


Steamed  bone  Group. 


1 

l°- 

fA. 

'  B. 

C. 

('>• 

Pine,    medium,    andj-j, 
coarse  bone  Group-  '^ 

'c. 

.  A. 
Fine,    medium,    and 
coarse  South  Caroli-^  B 
na  i)ho8phate  Group 

C. 


Amounts. 


<  Basal  mixture 

)  South  Carolina  superphosphate 

(  Basal  mixture « 

(  South  Carolina  superphosphate 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  South  Carolina  superphosphate 

C  Ba.sai  mixture ' 

I  South  Carolina  superphosphate 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  South  Carolina  phosphate 

<  Basal  mixture 

l  South  Carolina  phosphate 

(  Basnl  mixture 

I  South  Cai  olina  phosphate 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  South  Carolina  phosphate 

<  Basal  mixture  .   

I  Steamed  bone 

(  Basal  mixture 

(  Steamed  bone 

(  Basal  mixture 

I  Steamed  bone 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  Steamed  bone 

(  Basal  mixture    

I  Ground  bono  (line) 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  Ground  bono  (medium) 

<  Basal  mixture 

I  Ground  bone  (coarse) 

C  Basal  mixture 

I  Eoutli  Carolina  phospliate  (line)  

f  Basal  mixture 

\  South  Carolina  phosphate  (medium) 

5  Basal  mixture 

I  South  Carolina  phosphate  (coarse).. 


Pounds. 
14-.  2 
6.7 
14.2 
13.3 
14.2 
26.7 
14.2 
40.0 

]       14.2 


14.2 


Pounds. 
28  3 
13:3 
28.3 
26.7 
28.3 
53.4 
28.3 
80.0 

28.3 
28.3 


28.3 


14.2 

28.3 

.5.0 

10.0 

14.2 

28.3 

10  0 

20.0 

14.2 

28  3 

20.0 

40.0 

14.2 

28.3 

30.  0 

60.0 

14.2 

28.  3 

20.0 

40.0 

1.4.  2 

28.3 

20.0 

40.0 

14.2 

28.3 

20.0 

40.0 

14.2 

28.3 

20,0 

40.0 

14.2 

28.3 

20.0 

40.0 

14.2 

28.3 

20.0 

40.0 

32 

Specifications  for  fertilizers  of  phosphoric  acid  set:  Materials  to  be  put 
up  with  greatest  care,  in  bags  witli  labels  stating  contents.  Minimum 
percentages  as  follows  ;  Mtrogeu  mixture  and  muriate  of  potash  as  in 
nitrogen  experiment.  Superphosphate  (dissolved  bone  black)  with  1.5 
per  cent,  soluble,  and  10  per  cent,  total  P2O5.  Precipitated  phosphate 
to  consist  of  high  grade  superphosphates  32  per  cent,  and  chalk  in  equal 
parts,  and  to  contain  16  per  cent.  P2O5.  Other  materials  to  be  of  good 
average  quality. 


ARRANGEMENT    OF    THE    EXPERIMENT. 

The  plan  herewith  shows  a  fitting  arrangement  for  the  "Nitrogen 
Experiment  No.  1,"  and  illustrates  how  others  may  advantageously  be 
planned. 

Nitrogen  Experiment, 

Arrangement  of  experimental  field. 


With  "  Acre  set."  Each  plot  ^  acre. 

AVhole  field  one  acre. 
With  "  Two-acre  set."  Each  plot  -j^o-  acre. 

W^hole  field  two  acres. 


Or  more  with  unmanured 
strips  between  each  two 
plots. 


^ 


Preliminary  group \ 


Nitric-acid  group . 


Ammonia  group . 


0.  No  manure. 

1.  Nitrate  of  soda. 

2.  Superphosphate. 

3.  Muriate  of  ])0tash. 

4.  Nitrate  of  soda  and  superphosphate. 

5.  Nitrate  of  soda  and  juuriate  of  potash. 

6.  Superj^hospliate   and  muriate   of  potash. 

"Mixed  minerals." 

7.  Mixed  minerals  plus  nitrate  of  soda.    One- 

third  ration. 

8.  Mixed  minerals  plus  nitrate  of  soda.   Two- 

thirds  ration, 

9.  Mixed  minerals  i)lus  nitrate  of  soda.    Full 

ration. 
6a.  Mixed  minerals.     Duplicate  of  No.  6. 
^  10.  Mixed  minerals  plus  sulphate  of  ammonia. 

.  One-third  ration. 
.  11.  Mixed  minerals  plus  suliihate  of  ammonia. 
»  Two-thirds  ration. 

12.  Mixed  minerals  plus  sulphate  of  ammonia. 
Full  ration. 

Duplicate  of  No.  6. 
l)lus  dried  blood.     One- 


eft. 
13. 


Organic-nitrogen  group  { 


Mixed  minerals. 

Mixed  minerals 
third  ration. 

14.  Mixed  minerals 

thirds  ration. 

15.  Mixed  minerals 

ration. 
6c.  Mixed  minerals. 
00.  No  manure. 


jdIus  dried  blood.    Two- 
plus  dried  blood.    Full 
Duplicate  of  No.  6. 


33 

CROPS  TO  BE  EXPEEIMENTED  UPON. 

The  kind  of  croj)  will,  of  course,  be  selected  by  the  experimenter 
Experiments  are  needed  upon  all  our  ordinary  crops,  but  especially  on 
wheat,  barley,  rye,  oats,  corn,  sorghum,  grass,  clover,  onions,  potatoes, 
roots,  and,  in  the  South,  sugar  cane  and  cotton. 
3  A 


%  i 


d 


4^ 


^olfl. 


— MAR2519n  I 


LEVI 

and  the 

Stockbridge  Principle  of  Plant  Feeding 

By  WILLIAM  H.  BOWKER 


ic-ali  siral 


OCKBRIDc/^llegte 


^ 


< 


LEVI   STOCKBRIDGE 

and  the 

Stockbridge  Principle 
of  Plant  Feeding 


Extract  from  Tribute 
By  WILLIAM  H.   BOWKER 

Read  at  the 

Memorial  Exercises  at  Amherst 

1904 


Printed 
BOSTON  1911 


LEVI  STOCKBRIDGE 

Professor  of  Agriculture  in  the  Massachusetts  Agricultural  College  from  1S71 
to  1S82,  and  President  of  the  College  from  l.SSO  to  1882. 

1820—1904 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


LEVI  STOCKBRIDGE 


Biographical  Note:  Levi  Stockbridge,  a  man  of  the 
type  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  was  a  farmer's  son  and 
for  many  years  a  practical  farmer  in  Hadley,  Mass. 
Except  for  such  schooling  as  he  received  at  the 
district  school,  and  a  few  lectures  in  chemistry 
which  he  attended  at  Amherst  College,  he  was 
self-taught.  He  possessed  an  alert  mind,  a  reten- 
tive memory,  and  a  marked  talent  for  clear, 
forceful  expression.  Becoming  distinguished  as 
a  leader  and  public  speaker,  he  was  sent  for  sev- 
eral terms  to  both  branches  of  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature.  He  was  Massachusetts'  first  cattl^ 
commissioner,  and  in  the  course  of  his  twenty- 
seven  years'  continuous  service  in  that  office  he 
came  to  know  nearly  every  farmer  in  the  state, 
who  looked  up  to  and  respected  him.  One  of  his 
greatest  achievements  was  the  quick  and  effective 
manner  in  which  he  stamped  out  a  threatened 
epidemic  of  pleuro-pneumonia. 

He„was  instrumental  in  securing  for  the  state 
the  Agricultural  College  located  at  Amherst, 
Mass.,  in  spite  of  ridicule  and  strong  opposition ."^j^^ 
He  was  its  first  farm  superintendent;  later,  pro- 
fessor of  agriculture,  and  for  two  years  its  presi- 
dent. During  his  connection  with  the  college,  at 
considerable  personal  inconvenience,  he  frequently 
endorsed  the  notes  of  the  college  to  the  local 
banks,  thus  tiding  it  over  financial  stress.     He 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


was  also  "  an  ever-present  help  in  time  of  need  " 
to  many  worthy  students.  All  the  students  were 
"  his  boys,"  and  to  all  he  was  counselor  and 
friend,  and  endearingly  known  as  "  Prof  Stock." 

Physically,  he  was  tall  and  wiry,  with  a  great 
capacity  for  work,  which  he  never  shirked.  He 
was  humorous,  tactful,  judicial,  but  outspoken; 
always  sunny,  hopeful,  sane;  of  the  right  makeup 
to  lead  and  teach  young  manhood.  He  sprang 
from  the  plain  people  and  believed  in  them;  thus 
he  naturally  abhorred  a  plutocracy  and  believed 
in  every  man's  having  a  fair  chance. 

It  is  thought  that  he  did  as  much  to  advance 
the  cause  of  agricultural  education  and  to  popu- 
larize the  chemistry  of  plant  foods  as  any  one  man 
of  his  time.  It  was  while  he  occupied  the  chair 
of  professor  of  agriculture  that  he  evolved  the 
Stockbridge  principle  of  plant  feeding  and  the 
Stockbridge  formulas  which  he  freely  published 
to  the  world,  and  which  have  made  his  name  a 
household  word  in  rural  communities. 


THE  STOCKBRIDGE  PRINCIPLE 
OF  PLANT  FEEDING 


If  I  were  asked  what  was  Professor  Stock- 
bridge's  greatest  contribution  to  agriculture,  I 
should  say  that  it  was  not  his  formulas  for  crop 
feeding  by  which  he  is  so  widely  known;  for, 
useful  as  these  were,  they  were  but  stepping 
stones  to  a  better  knowledge  of  the  object  and 
use  of  fertilizers.  His  greatest  contribution  to 
agriculture,  as  it  seems  to  me,  was  his  new  con- 
ception of  the  office  of  fertility  in  farm  economy. 
Up  to  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  Stock- 
bridge  formulas,  the  practice  had  been  to  manure 
the  soil  in  order  to  restore  lost  fertility  and  to 
supply  deficiencies  in  the  soil,  as  ascertained  by 
a  chemical  or  crop  analysis  of  the  soil.  Stock- 
bridge  saw  that  this  method  was  not  a  practical 
solution  of  the  problem,  for  neither  chemical 
nor  crop  analysis  of  the  soil  could  be  relied  upon 
as  a  true  guide  to  its  enrichment.  The  chemist 
disclosed  too  much  that  was  misleading  and  the 
crop  too  little  that  was  conclusive.  But,  what 
is  more  to  the  point,  Stockbridge  saw  that  we 
had  taken  hold  of  the  problem  at  the  wrong  end. 

A  PRACTICAL  SOLUTION 

It  was  not  the  soil,  but  the  crop,  that  we  should 
first  consider.  We  should  study  it  and  its  needs, 
and  supply  it,  as  far  as  we  were  able,  with  the 
necessary   elements   of   plant   nutrition   by   the 


FEED  THE  PLANT  — NOT  THE  SOIL 


use  of  properly  balanced  manures.  In  a  word, 
he  turned  from  the  inert  soil,  which  could  not 
answer,  to  the  living  crop,  which  could,  and  put 
this  question  to  it: 

"  What  shall  I  supply  you  in  excess  of  what 
you  may  obtain  from  the  soil  or  air  by  your  own 
habits  and  conditions  of  growth  to  make  you 
a  perfect  and  profitable  crop?  " 

On  the  other  hand,  the  farmer  was  asking  him: 

"  What  shall  I  use  to  produce  profitable  crops 
—  how  much  and  in  what  form?  " 

Starting,  then,  from  the  crop,  with  the  farm- 
er's question  ever  spurring  him  on,  and  with 
such  data  as  he  could  find,  he  worked  out  his 
well-known  formulas,  which  were  published 
broadcast  in  1876.  And  let  me  say  here  that 
besides  being  published  in  many  agricultural 
papers  and  reports,  more  than  half  a  million 
pamphlets  containing  them  were  distributed. 

FORMULAS   NOT   INFALLIBLE 

He  did  not  claim  that  his  formulas  were 
infallible,  for  he  anticipated  and  announced, 
what  we  soon  discovered  in  practice,  that  they 
would  need  to  be  modified,  as  experience  should 
point  the  way.  They  served,  however,  a  greater 
purpose  even  than  Stockbridge  dreamed  at  the 
time  —  they  centered  our  thought  and  our 
study  on  the  crop.  From  that  time  on  we  dis- 
cussed plant  food  and  not  soil  food  —  plant  feed- 
ing instead  of  soil  manuring.  ''  Feed  the  crop 
rather  than  the  soil  "  was  a  frequent  expression 
at  that  time. 

It  is  well  to  observe  here  that  crop  formulas 
were  not  new.     Ville  and  others  had  published 


THE  FIRST  DEFINITE  METHOD 


various  sets.  The  Stockbridge  formulas,  how- 
ever, were  unique  in  this:  that  they  were  based 
not  alone  on  the  analysis  of  the  crop,  but  on 
its  power  of  absorption  from  all  the  sources  of 
fertility  —  from  soil,  air,  and  water.  Thus 
Stockbridge  boldly  prescribed: 

"  To  produce  fifty  bushels  of  shelled  corn  per 
acre  (without  any  stable  manure)  and  its  natural 
proportion  of  stover,  more  than  the  natural 
yield  of  the  land,  apply  so  many  pounds  each  of 
nitrogen,  potash,  and  phosphoric  acid.  Or,  to 
produce  a  stated  quantity  of  tobacco  leaf  of 
the  desired  color  and  texture,  apply  a  stated 
quantity  of  plant  food  elements,  preferably  in 
the  form  of  sulphates  and  nitrates." 

Here,  then,  for  the  first  time,  a  definite  way  was 
prescribed  to  attain  a  definite  object.  It  was  a 
startling  proposition,  and,  as  might  be  expected, 
it  brought  ridicule  from  many  quarters,  but 
Stockbridge  did  not  allow  that  to  disturb  him. 
He  knew  that  the  commercial  farmer  needed  a 
tangible  starting  point.  He  knew  that  to  con- 
sider the  needs  of  the  crop,  the  living  thing,  both 
as  to  amount  and  kind  of  plant  food,  rather  than 
the  needs  of  the  soil,  an  unknown  and  unknow- 
able quantity,  was  not  only  a  common-sense  way 
of  meeting  the  problem  of  plant  nutrition,  but 
a  very  direct  way  of  helping  the  farmer  out  of 
the  quagmire  of  doubt. 

INSURE   THE   CROP 

The  formulas  might  not  be  accurate;  in  some 
cases  they  might  supply  excessive  amounts  of 
plant  food  elements  and  apparently  be  very 
wasteful,  yet  he  believed  that  in  the  end  it  was 


STUDY  THE  PLANT 


better  economy  to  apply  too  much  and  insure  a 
crop  than  use  too  little  and  lose  a  crop.  Never- 
theless, as  Professor  Stockbridge  anticipated 
would  be  the  case,  the  fertilizers  based  on  his 
formulas  were  modified  from  time  to  time  as  we 
gained  light,  chiefly  by  the  reduction  of  nitrogen 
and  the  increase  of  phosphoric  acid,  as  it  was 
found  that  many  crops  were  able  to  gather 
from  natural  sources,  through  bacterial  action  or 
otherwise,  some  part  of  the  required  nitrogen, 
and  that  an  excess  of  available  phosphoric  acid 
would  hasten  maturity.  It  was  also  found  that 
to  supply  the  full  complement  of  nitrogen  in 
addition  to  what  the  crop  would  assimilate  for 
itself  tended  in  many  cases  to  produce  an  un- 
balanced growth;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  found  that  in  some  cases,  especially  where 
a  forced  growth  or  a  tender  leaf  was  required, 
an  excess  of  nitrogen  was  desirable.  Thus  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  crop  was  both  the  starting 
and  the  objective  point.  Not  only  its  chemical 
needs,  but  its  habits  and  conditions  of  growth, 
the  object  for  which  it  was  grown,  and  its 
market  qualities,  were  all  factors  which  influ- 
enced the  composition  or  modification  of  the 
fertilizers;  and  the  same  factors  are  as  potent 
to-day.  Thus,  since  it  was  the  crop  that  chiefly 
concerned  Professor  Stockbridge,  how  natural 
and  sensible  was  his  question:  "  What  shall  I 
supply  you  to  make  you  a  perfect  and  profitable 
crop?  " 

POTENTIAL  FERTILITY 

Let  us  now  consider  for  a  moment  another 
phase   of    the    subject,    namely,    the    potential 


THE  PLANT  FOOD  IN  THE  SOIL 


fertility  of  the  soil,  or  "  the  natural  yield,"  to 
which  Professor  Stockbridge  frequently  referred. 
It  has  been  known  for  a  long  time  that  practically 
all  tillable  soils  are  rich  in  plant  food  elements, 
and  yet  many  of  them  are  barren,  and  most  of 
them  will  not  produce  profitable  crops  without 
the  aid  of  manure  or  fertilizer. 

Prof.  Frederick  D.  Chester,  of  Delaware,  states 
in  an  able  bulletin  recently  published: 

"  An  average  of  the  results  of  49  analyses  of  the  typi- 
cal soils  of  the  United  States  showed  per  acre  for  the 
first  eight  inches  of  surface  2,600  pounds  of  nitrogen, 
4,800  pounds  of  phosphoric  acid,  and  13,400  pounds  of 
potash.  The  average  yield  of  wheat  in  the  United  States 
is  14  bushels  per  acre.  Such  a  crop  will  remove  29.7 
pounds  of  nitrogen,  9.5  pounds  of  phosphoric  acid,  13.7 
pounds  of  potash. 

"  Now,  if  all  the  potential  nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid, 
and  potash  could  be  rendered  available,  there  is  present 
in  such  an  average  soil,  in  the  first  eight  inches,  enough 
nitrogen  to  last  ninety  years,  enough  phosphoric  acid 
for  five  hundred  years,  and  enough  potash  for  one 
thousand  years." 

In  a  word,  potential  fertility  represents  plant 
food  which  is  so  tightly  locked  up  that  it  is  not 
available  for  present  needs  and  becomes  avail- 
able only  through  the  process  of  decay  and 
disintegration,  which  is  too  slow  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  commercial  farmer.  Stock- 
bridge  realized  the  situation,  but  instead  of 
asking  the  soil  how  much  of  the  potential  fer- 
tility could  be  depended  upon  for  each  crop  (a 
question  which  will  never  be  satisfactorily 
answered),  he  went  to  the  crop  and  asked  it  how 


THE  VERY  SMALL  AMOUNT  REQUIRED 


much  it  was  necessary  to  supply  for  a  stated 
yield  over  and  above  the  natural  yield  of  the 
land.  In  all  cases  he  found  it  to  be  a  very  small 
quantity.  For  the  corn  crop,  not  over  200 
pounds  of  nitrogen,  potash,  and  phosphoric  acid 
was  necessary,  which  the  crop  would  return 
fiftyfold  (at  least  five  tons  in  stalk  and  grain), 
so  little  to  produce  so  much,  and  yet,  if  this  little 
quantity  of  200  pounds  was  not  supplied,  the 
crop  would  be  a  failure. 

THE   LITTLE   ESSENTIAL    BALANCE 

It  was  this  little  essential  balance  of  available 
plant  food  which  stood  between  success  and 
failure  that  concerned  Professor  Stockbridge,  as 
it  concerns  every  farmer  to-day.  Although  it 
was  small,  he  did  not  deem  it  wise  to  depend 
upon  the  potential  fertility  of  the  soil  to  supply 
it,  or  even  any  considerable  part  of  it.  For  the 
commercial  farmer  it  was  too  risky  and  uncertain. 
To  insure  a  crop,  as  far  as  one  was  able,  was  a 
cardinal  principle  with  him;  not  to  do  it  was,  in 
his  eyes,  almost  a  crime.  But  he  felt  that  all 
these  things  would  right  themselves  as  we  came 
to  know  more  about  farm  crops  and  their 
environment. 

THE   SINGLE   ELEMENT   DOCTRINE 

As  bearing  on  the  economy  of  his  system  of 
plant  feeding,  I  want  to  quote  here  one  of  his 
apt  illustrations.     He  said  in  effect: 

"  In  a  sense  the  farmer  is  a  manufacturer  and  the  soil 
is  his  machine,  into  which  he  puts  plant  food,  and  out 
of  which,  by  the  aid  of  nature  and  his  own  efforts,  he 


THE  SINGLE  ELEMENT  DOCTRINE 


takes  his  product  at  harvest  time.  If  the  soil  machine 
is  a  good  one,  so  much  the  better.  If  it  has  a  balance  of 
crop-producing  power  to  its  credit,  let  us  preserve  that 
balance  for  an  emergency.  Let  us  not  draw  on  it  for 
present  needs." 

He  had  no  patience  with  the  so-called  single- 
element  doctrine,  which  depends  for  its  success 
on  the  potential  fertility  —  no  patience  with  the 
farmer  who  was  trying  to  find  out  for  himself  if 
he  could  leave  out  any  one  of  the  three  leading 
elements  of  plant  nutrition  (nitrogen,  potash, 
and  phosphoric  acid),  or  how  little  of  each  he 
could  get  along  with.  That  was  a  proper  subject 
for  the  scientific  worker  to  investigate,  but  until 
we  knew  more  about  it,  the  practical  farmer,  who 
had  his  living  to  make  and  bills  to  pay,  should 
not  tinker  with  it.  To  Stockbridge  it  meant,  in 
the  end,  improvident  farming.  At  best,  the 
farmer  had  to  take  great  chances,  especially  with 
the  weather,  —  the  largest  factor  in  crop  raising, 
over  which  he  had  no  control,  —  but  he  should 
take  no  chances  with  the  things  which  he  could 
control.  Among  these  were  the  amount  and 
kind  of  manure  which  he  applied  to  his  crops. 
Thus,  if  he  hoped  for  a  stated  crop  he  should  at 
least  fertilize  intelligently^  for  that  crop.  For 
the  man  who  was  dependent  on  his  crops  any 
other  course  was  unwise.  Moreover,  any  other 
course  would  leave  the  soil  machine  in  a  poorer 
condition  than  he  found  it.  Broadly  speaking, 
to  encourage  him  to  take  out  more  than  he 
put  back  was  not  only  bad  economy,  but  bad 
morals,  and  should  be  discouraged,  for  in  the 
end  it  would  lead  to  crop  bankruptcy. 


DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  PLANT  FOOD 


RAISING   THE   STANDARD 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  farmers  appreci- 
ated this  bold  course.  As  Stockbridge  put  it, 
they  jumped  on  his  wagon  before  he  was  ready 
to  start.  He  was  indeed  their  prophet,  who  led 
them  out  of  the  wilderness  of  speculation  into 
the  light  of  practical  methods.  As  might  be 
expected,  this  new  conception  of  the  use  of 
chemical  manures  —  or  plant  food,  as  he  liked 
to  call  it  —  not  only  revolutionized  all  our 
notions  of  fertilization,  but  the  entire  fertilizer 
business  as  well.  It  immediately  raised  the 
standard  of  commercial  manures  from  ordinary 
superphosphates,  containing  no  potash,  to 
"  complete  manures,"  many  of  them  rich  in 
potash.  Special  fertilizers  for  special  crops  or 
classes  of  crops  were  brought  out  by  various 
makers,  and  the  business  received  a  new  impetus 
and  a  new  recognition  in  the  community.  It 
was  put  on  a  sound  footing,  from  which  it  can 
never  be  displaced. 

STOCK  FEEDING   AND   PLANT   FEEDING 

As  in  stock  feeding  we  chiefly  concern  our- 
selves with  the  study  of  the  animal  and  its  needs, 
so  in  plant  feeding  we  must  make  an  intelligent 
study  of  the  needs  'of  the  living  crop.  As  we  know 
how  to  feed  the  cow  for  milk  or  beef,  so  we  must 
know  how  to  feed  the  plant  for  leaf  or  seed. 
Not  only  must  we  know  the  amount  of  plant 
food  to  be  supplied,  based  on  crop  requirements, 
but  the  form  and  association  of  the  different 
elements  must  be  considered;  and  in  the  study 
of  this  problem  we  must  also  continue  to  study 
the  soil,  its  potential  fertility,  its  physical  and 


10 


CONTINUAL  STUDY  NEEDED 


chemical  characteristics,  and  particularly  the 
lower  orders  of  life  which  it  contains,  the  bacteria 
and  other  unseen  forces.  In  short,  we  must 
continue  our  study  of  all  the  sources  and  forces 
of  fertility,  to  the  end  that  we  may  know  what 
each  contributes  to  the  upbuilding,  not  neces- 
sarily of  the  soil,  but  of  the  crop  life  above  the 
soil.    Thus  did  Stockbridge  teach  and  practice. 

GOOD   PRACTICE   AND   GOOD   SCIENCE 

As  Stephenson  made  practical  the  discovery  of 
Watts,  as  Singer  improved  upon  the  invention 
of  Howe,  so  Stockbridge  took  the  teachings  of 
Liebig  and  Johnson,  the  tables  of  Wolf,  and  the 
experiments  of  Goessmann,  Atwater,  and  Sturte- 
vant,  and  applied  them  to  practical  and  useful 
ends.  While  the  system  of  plant  feeding  which 
he  employed,  or  perhaps  I  should  say,  the 
method  of  application  as  prescribed  in  his 
formulas,  did  not  appeal  to  the  scientific  mind 
in  the  beginning,  it  did  appeal  to  the  practical 
farmers,  for  it  met  their  needs  as  no  other 
method  ever  before  had  done.  As  good  practice 
and  good  science  must  agree  in  the  end,  so  I 
believe  the  scientific  world  is  coming  to  agree 
with  the  practical  farmer  that  the  system  and 
the  method  of  application  for  which  Stockbridge 
stood  and  labored  is  as  truly  scientific  as  it  is 
thoroughly  practical,  and  to  accord  him  a  high 
place  among  the  workers  for  the  advancement  of 
scientific  as  well  as  practical  husbandry. 


11 


fl^ 


FEB  28 1914 

"Read  not  to  contradict  and  to  confute  IJ*»iL#»iyi» 

nor  to  believe  and  take  for  granted,  but  to  '* 

weigh  and  consider."      {Bacon.) 


The  Problem  of  Fertility 
In  the  Middle  West 


Address  prepared  by  W.  H.  Bowker  and  Horace  Bowker  and 
read  by  the  latter  at  a  Luncheon  given  to  representative  Bankers 
and  Railroad  Men  by  the  Middle  West  Soil  Improvement  Com- 
mittee of  The  National  Fertilizer  Association,  in  Chicago 
January  9,  1914. 


Thirteenth  Cen: 


I  United  States:  1910. 


P.S.6C2.)  No. 2.  -j,,jg  jjj^p  jg  3  photographic  reproduction  of  that  published  in  the  U.  S.  Census  1910,  Vol.  V.       Statistics  Compiled  trom  the  Census  by  W.  H.  Bowker. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  FERTILITY  IN 
THE  MIDDLE   WEST 


We  are  met  here  to  discuss  fertility  or  commercial  plant  foods, 
the  product  of  the  plant  food  industry.  It  is  the  province  of  our 
industry  to  send  its  ships  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe  to 
gather  fertility  and  to  render  it  available  for  man's  use.  We 
are  now  tapping  the  air  for  nitrogen,  of  which  there  are  35,000 
tons  hanging  over  each  acre  of  the  earth's  surface,  —  an  exhaust- 
less  reservoir,  soon  to  be  extensively  utilized  to  restore  the  nitro- 
gen which  has  been  sent  abroad  in  the  shape  of  cattle  and  cereals. 


Liebig's  Great  Discovery 

About  seventy-three  years  ago  a  chemist,  Baron  Von  Liebig, 
discovered  that  bone  dissolved  in  sulphuric  acid  was  more  avail- 
able for  plants  than  the  raw  bone.  Bone  and  wood  ashes  had 
been  used  as  fertilizers  for  ages,  but  it  was  known  that  bone 
was  slow-acting,  that  it  did  not  render  up  its  plant  food  readily 
enough.  It  was  known  that  plants  took  their  nourishment 
from  the  soil  in  solution,  and  must  have  most  of  it  during  60 
days  of  the  growing  season.  It  was  known  that  bone  was  not 
soluble  in  water.  Liebig  reasoned  that  if  it  could  be  made  soluble 
in  water,  plants  would  assimilate  it  more  readily.  He  found  by 
treating  bone  (a  three-lime  phosphate)  with  sulphuric  acid,  that 
he  took  away  two  parts  of  lime,  forming  sulphate  of  lime,  or 
land  plaster,  and  left  the  remaining  part  of  lime  in  combination 
with  phosphorus  as  a  one-lime  phosphate  which  was  soluble 
in  water,  a  form  easily  assimilated  by  growing  crops,  and 
which  would  produce  an  earlier  and  more  vigorous  growth.  He 
called  this  product  Superphosphate  of  Lime.  It  was  one  of  the 
great  discoveries  of  the  ages,  and  the  beginning  of  the  fertilizer 
industry.  Thus  you  see  that  chemistry  is  the  basis  of  the  industry. 


Sources  of  Commercial  Plant  Foods 

Let  us  consider  the  chemical  elements  in  which  the  fertilizer 
industry  deals.  It  is  known  that  crops  require  some  thirteen 
elements  for  their  growth,  ranging  from  nitrogen  to  iron.  It 
is  known  that  soil  and  air  are  abundantly  supplied  with  most  of 
them;  that  through  continuous  cropping,  without  adequate 
returns,  most  soils  are  deficient  in  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  potas- 
sium, and  in  some  cases  lacking  in  lime  and  sulphur;  that  as  a 
rule,  the  three  which  we  need  to  supply,  the  great  trio,  are  nitrogen, 
phosphorus  and  potash. 

Thus  we  have  searched  the  world  for  sources  of  phosphorus, 
contained  in  phosphate  of  lime.  We  have  found  enormous 
quantities  of  phosphates  in  the  Carolinas,  in  Florida,  in  Tennes- 
see, and  now  in  Wyoming  and  Montana.  We  have  mined  this 
phosphate,  washed  it,  and  ground  it,  and  following  the  discovery 
of  Liebig,  we  have  dissolved  it  and  converted  it  into  a  super- 
phosphate, now  popularly  known  as  Acid  Phosphate. 

We  have  searched  the  earth  for  potash  to  take  the  place  of 
the  potash  which  we  used  to  get  in  wood  ashes,  and  so  far  we  have 
found  only  one  available  source,  in  Germany,  and  that  seems  to  be 
inexhaustible.  But  it  is  a  monopoly,  and  we  are  made  to  pay 
much  more  for  it  than  we  should  pay. 

We  have  searched  the  world  for  nitrogen,  the  most  costly 
element  of  plant  food,  and  we  have  found  it  in  the  enormous 
nitrate  deposits  of  Chili,  and  in  the  coal  deposits  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Ohio,  and  Illinois,  or  wherever  there  is  soft  coal  which 
can  be  used  for  coking  purposes.  This  we  are  recovering  in  the 
form  of  sulphate  of  ammonia,  the  use  of  which  should  be  encour- 
aged, for  the  reason  that  it  is  not  only  an  excellent  source  of 
nitrogen,  but  it  is  a  home  source,  lying  right  here  under  our  feet, 
by  the  use  of  which  we  can  build  up  our  agriculture  and  keep  at 
home  some  part  of  the  millions  we  are  now  sending  abroad  for 
nitrogen,  —  an  economic  proposition  from  any  angle  you  view  it. 

We  also  find  nitrogen  in  the  by-products  of  our  packing  houses 
and  fisheries,  —  in  the  immense  quantities  of  tankages,  waste 
meat  and  waste  fish,  which  are  converted  into  fertilizers.  We  also 
find  it  in  seed  meals,  like  cotton  seed  and  linseed ;  but  these  and 
the  tankages  are  now  being  used  so  extensively  for  feeding  pur- 
poses that  they  are  not  a  dependable  source. 

Finally  in  our  search  for  nitrogen  we  come  to  the  atmosphere, 
the  greatest  source  of  all.  Recent  discoveries  are  rendering 
available  the  nitrogen  of  the  atmosphere  in  a  chemical  known 


as  Cyanamid,  and  also  in  Nitrate  of  Lime,  but  the  utilization  of 
atmospheric  nitrogen  at  present  depends  upon  a  high  degree  of 
heat,  which  can  be  generated  only  by  means  of  an  electrical  cur- 
rent. Where  cheap  water  power  is  abundant  and  an  electrical 
current  can  be  generated  at  low  cost,  which  cannot  be  sold  for 
lighting  or  manufacturing  purposes,  at  that  point  it  can  be 
utilized  to  extract  nitrogen  from  the  atmosphere.  A  plant  is  in 
successful  operation  at  Niagara  Falls  and  one  in  Norway.  Also 
plans  are  imder  way  for  developing  the  great  water  powers  in 
the  Blue  Ridge  mountains  for  this  purpose.  A  scheme  is  also 
reported  in  the  newspapers  to  utilize  Grand  Falls  in  Labrador  for 
extracting  atmospheric  nitrogen. 

Anotiier  source  of  nitrogen  is  the  leguminous  crops  grown  by 
farmers,  whereby  soil  bacteria  are  utilized.  It  is  known  that  no 
plant  can  thrive  above  the  earth  unless  smaller  plants,  known  as 
bacteria,  are  growing  in  the  earth,  —  in  other  words,  a  lower 
order  of  life,  which  yields  up  its  life  to  a  higher  order  in  the  shape 
of  farm  crops,  which  in  turn  yield  up  their  life  that  men  and 
animals  jnay  exist,  thus  rounding  out  a  marvelous  cycle,  the 
connecting  links  of  which  we  are  just  beginning  to  study,  and 
in  a  small  way,  to  comprehend. 

So  we  see  that  the  fertilizer  industry  is  something  more  than 
mixing  a  few  ingredients  together  with  a  shovel  on  a  barn  floor. 
If  you  men  have  to  deal  with  commercial,  labor  and  engineer- 
ing problems,  we  have  all  these,  and  in  addition  we  must  know 
something  of  the  applied  sciences,  such  as  chemistry,  mineralogy, 
botany,  and  bacteriology.  If  one  will  take  the  time  to  go  through 
a  modern  fertilizer  plant  and  note  its  furnaces,  lead  chambers, 
retorts  and  towers,  its  crushers  and  grinders,  he  will  see  that  it 
is  something  more  than  a  mixing  mill  and  warehouse. 

Lawes,  the  Founder  of  the  Industry 

We  spoke  of  Liebig  being  the  inventor  of  Superphosphate  of 
Lime,  the  basis  of  the  business,  yet  the  real  founder  of  the  fer- 
tilizer industry,  as  an  industry,  was  Sir  John  Lawes  of  England. 
He  claims  to  have  discovered  superphosphate  simultaneously 
with  Liebig,  but  whether  he  did  or  not,  he  was  the  first  man  to 
begin  the  manufacture  of  mineral  phosphates  (the  Cambridge 
coprolites  of  England)  into  superphosphate  or  acid  phosphate, 
and  to  add  nitrogen  to  it  in  the  shape  of  sulphate  and  muriate  of 
ammonia.  Later,  potash  in  the  shape  of  German  salts  was  added, 
making  what  is  now  called  the  "complete  fertilizer." 


Lawes  made  a  large  fortune  in  the  business,  a  portion  of  which 
he  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  an  experiment  station  on  his 
own  estate,  Rothamsted,  which  he  inherited.  For  more  than 
sixty  years  he  conducted  a  series  of  experiments  with  all  sorts  of 
fertilizers  and  fertilizing  materials  and  reported  them  so  accu- 
rately and  so  fairly,  no  matter  whether  for  or  against  commercial 
fertilizers,  that  they  have  been  accepted  as  authoritative  through- 
out the  world.  His  work  was  so  good  that  he  was  knighted  by 
Queen  Victoria  and  since  his  death  the  Rothamsted  station  has 
been  taken  over  by  the  Government,  and  is  now  conducted  as  a 
public  experiment  station,  much  like  our  state  experiment 
stations. 

NoAv  the  fertilizing  industry  the  world  over  has  copied  Lawes, 
and  is  making  exactly  the  same  things  which  he  made,  and  which 
the  Lawes  Manure  Company  is  making  today  in  England,  so  if 
we  are  not  making  good  things  the  blame  must  rest  with  Lawes. 
whom  we  have  imitated.  By  some  critics  complete  fertilizers 
have  been  called  "soil  stimulants"  and  "patent  soil  medicines," 
and  for  that  reason  the  public  is  sometimes  warned  against 
them.  If  they  are  stimulants  like  rum  why  should  Lawes  be 
praised  for  manufacturing  them,  and  we,  in  this  country,  con- 
demned for  doing  the  same  thing?  To  laud  the  one  and  condemn 
the  other  is  inconsistent,  to  say  the  least. 


The  Evolution  of  the  "Complete"  Fertilizer 

Let  us  consider  what  a  so-called  complete  fertilizer  really  is, 
containing  the  three  leading  elements,  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and 
potash.  It  is  an  evolution.  Liebig  started  with  ground  bone, 
which  contains  nitrogen  and  phosphate  of  lime.  He  took  prac- 
tically a  thousand  pounds  of  bone  and  added  a  thousand  pounds 
of  sulphuric  acid,  the  thousand  pounds  of  bone  originally  contain- 
ing 4%  of  nitrogen  and  20%  of  phosphoric  acid.  When  he 
added  the  thousand  pounds  of  sulphuric  acid  he  divided  the  result 
by  two  and  the  final  product  of  dissolved  bone  contained,  there- 
fore, approximately  2%  of  nitrogen  and  10%  of  phosphoric  acid. 
In  the  trade  today  it]|is]what  is  called  a  2-10  goods. 

What  was  the  next  step?  Somebody  added  some  concentrated 
potash,  and  then  we  had  the  "complete"  fertilizer  containing 
nitrogen,  soluble  phosphorus,  and  potash,  or  practically  a  2-8-2 
goods,  dissolved  bone  with  potash,  which  some  of  our  critics  affect 
to  call  a  soil  or  plant  stimulant. 


Milk  is  a  complete  food,  containing  the  three  leading  elements 
of  food ;  namely,  protein,  in  the  shape  of  cheese,  fat  in  the  shape 
of  cream,  and  sugar  in  the  shape  of  milk  sugar.  Would  you  call 
it  a  stimulant  because  of  that  fact? 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  stimulant  to  plants  in  the  sense 
that  alcohol  is  a  stimulant  to  man.  Fertilizers  are  available 
plant  food.  They  encourage  and  sustain  growth  because  they 
are  largely  soluble  in  water,  and  are  easily  assimilated  by  plants, 
as  milk  is  easily  assimilated  by  children.  Fertilizers  are  "liquid 
assets"  which  are  as  essential  in  the  soil  as  in  business.  Crops 
are  living  things;  they  want  what  they  want  as  and  when  they 
want  it;  failing  of  it  they  "go  broke."  There  are  some  who  go 
so  far  as  to  say  that  anything  is  a  stimulant  to  plants  which 
makes  them  grow.  In  that  sense,  water,  the  greatest  known 
solvent,  is  a  stimulant,  and  sunshine  is  a  stimulant,  and  the  elec- 
tric light  may  yet  prove  to  be  a  stimulant.  However,  to  satirize 
fertilizers  by  classing  them  with  rum  is  neither  scientific  nor  fair. 


The  "Filler"  in  Fertilizers 

A  great  many  people  think  fertilizers  contain  "filler"  or 
extraneous  material.  They  are  encouraged  to  think  so  by  those 
interested  in  the  sale  of  chemicals  produced  in  and  outside  of 
this  country.  When  Liebig  added  1,000  pounds  of  sulphuric 
acid  to  1,000  pounds  of  bone,  he  practically  had  a  ton  of  half  the 
strength  of  the  original  bone,  but  it  had  been  rendered  soluble 
hence  much  more  valuable.  In  the  process  there  is  some  shrink- 
age, perhaps  10%  or  200  pounds,  which  gives  room  to  add  potash 
in  the  form  of  a  German  potash  salt,  and  then  the  ton  is  rounded 
out  and  the  mixture  is  a  "complete  fertilizer,"  containing  the 
three  elements,  —  nitrogen,  available  phosphorus,  and  potash, 
but  where  is  the  filler — that  bugbear,  that  scarecrow,  that  thing 
which  is  held  up  by  some  of  our  critics  to  discredit  our  wares? 
There  was  no  filler  in  Liebig's  Dissolved  Bone  or  in  Lawes' 
"Complete  Fertilizer"  made  from  dissolved  bone,  for  there  was 
no  room  for  any;  and  there  is  practically  no  filler  in  fertilizers 
today,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  little  or  no  room  for  any. 
Moreover,  there  is  another  and  more  potent  reason,  namely,  it 
costs  money  to  assemble  and  prepare  extraneous  matter,  even 
common  sand,  when  by  proper  balancing  of  materials  it  is  not 
necessary.  A  chemist  who  figured  his  formulas  so  that  it  cost 
25  cents  or  even  10  cents  a  ton  "to  fill  up"  would  soon  lose  his 
job, 

7 


Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  only  15%  of  pure  milk  is  solids 
or  food,  and  that  the  remaining  85%  is  water?  Can  you  separate 
the  water  from  the  milk  and  still  have  a  white,  limpid  fluid? 
The  water  in  milk  is  the  "normal  water  of  composition"  which 
holds  and  carries  the  actual  nourishment  of  milk.  So  in  fertil- 
izers, take  nitrate  of  soda,  one  of  the  most  popular  fertilizer 
chemicals  ;  100  lbs.  contains  15  pounds  of  nitrogen;  the  remaining 
85  pounds  is  the  "normal  oxygen,  soda  and  water  of  composition." 
Take  the  most  concentrated  fertilizer  chemical  salt  in  use,  namely, 
muriate  of  potash.  It  contains  only  50  pounds  of  potash  in  the 
hundred  pounds. 

Finally,  take  one  of  the  most  concentrated  complete  fertilizers 
which  the  industry  puts  out;  it  contains  but  25%  of  actual  plant 
food  in  a  ton,  or  500  pounds  of  nitrogen,  potash,  and  phosphoric 
acid  added  together.  What  is  the  remaining  1,500  pounds? 
Naturally  one  not  familiar  with  chemistry  thinks  it  is  so  called 
"  filler  "  but  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  is  made  up  of  organic 
matter,  salts,  alkalis  and  acids,  which  are  the  carriers  or  con- 
tainers of  plant  food,  as  the  water  of  milk  is  the  natural  carrier 
of  the  food  of  milk,  as  the  fibre  of  meat  is  the  natural  carrier  of 
the  protein  and  fat  of  meat.  And  right  here  it  is  well  to  observe 
that  one  of  the  medium  grades  of  fertilizer  on  the  market,  3-8-4, 
which  equals  15  units  of  plant  food  to  a  ton,  is  exactly  the  same 
number  of  units  that  nitrate  of  soda  contains.  Does  anyone 
claim  that  nitrate  contains  any  filler  in  the  popular  sense  of  that 
term  because  it  carries  only  15  units  or  300  pounds  of  plant  food 
in  a  ton? 

It  may  be  urged  that  by  using  concentrated  chemicals  one 
can  make  the  same  grade  with  two-thirds  of  the  bulk.  So  he 
can  in  some  cases,  but  such  mixtures  would  cake  and  would  not 
be  drillable  in  a  machine.  Moreover,  they  would  not  supply 
the  forms  of  plant  food  which  crops  need.  Besides,  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  these  concentrated  chemicals  would  displace  just  so 
much  by-product  plant  foods,  which  it  is  good  to  use,  both  from 
the  standpoint  of  economy  and  from  that  of  making  stable, 
drillable  goods.  No  sound  economist  or  wise  agronomist  advises 
the  exclusive  use  of  concentrated  chemicals  any  more  than  he 
would  advise  the  exclusive  use  of  concentrates  in  the  feeding  of 
live  stock. 

We  have  gone  into  this  matter  with  some  detail  because  the 
imputation  of  the  use  of  fillers  is  so  often  thrown  up  against  the 
industry  to  injure  it.  Now  while  we  do  not  say  that  fillers  are  never 

8 


used,  it  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule,  and  the  exceptions 
are  usually  where  they  are  needed  as  "conditioners"  and  in  that 
case  they  are  usually  such  materials  as  not  infrequently  contribute 
to  the  sum  total  of  plant  food.  Fillers,  in  the  shape  of  extraneous 
matter,  would  be  disclosed  in  the  analysis,  which  rarely  occurs. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  exist  chiefly  in  the  imagination  of  the 
critics. 

Barren  (?)  East  and  Fertile  (?)  West  Compared 

It  has  been  said  that  where  fertilizers  have  been  used  longest 
in  the  East,  there  the  soil  is  worn  out.  The  Crop  Census  does 
not  show  it.  On  the  contrary,  where  attention  is  paid  to  rota- 
tion of  crops,  and  to  keeping  up  the  humus,  the  Census  shows 
that  the  East  is  producing,  even  of  the  staple  crops,  much  more 
per  acre  than  is  grown  in  the  Middle  West*.  Moreover,  where 
fertilizers  have  been  used  extensively  and  intelligently,  there  the 
soils  are  increasing  in  fertility  and  agriculture  is  prospering.  In 
Europe  they  find  it  pays  to  make  a  fertile  soil  still  more  fertile  by 
the  use  of  chemical  fertilizers.  Gov.  Herrick,  our  minister  to 
France,  writes: 

"All  the  states  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  now  use  com- 
mercial fertilizers.  Eventually  there  will  not  be  an  acre  in 
the  Nation  that  cannot  profitably  use  fertilizers.  If  used  in 
the  smallest  European  proportions  of  $6  to  the  acre,  the  ag- 
gregate sum  bulks  so  large  as  to  stagger  the  imagination." 

Fertilizers  Serve  Other  Purposes 

Commercial  fertilizers,  in  addition  to  supplying  plant  food, 
serve  other  purposes  which  are  often  lost  sight  of.  Because  they 
supply  this  food  in  soluble,  active  forms,  they  improve  quality; 
as  in  the  case  of  grains,  they  stiffen  the  straw  and  fill  out  kernels; 
but  what  is  quite  as  important,  they  hasten  maturity,  reducing 
the  percentage  of  soft  corn  or  wheat.  Oftentimes  they  are  the 
best  crop  insurance  a  farmer  can  employ. 

In  New  England,  commercial  fertilizers  were  first  used  as 
"starters,"  as  concentrated  foods  are  used  to  start  a  calf  to  an 
early  vigorous  maturity.  Before  the  days  of  dissolved  bone 
they  could  not  raise  corn  successfully  in  New  Hampshire.  The 
seasons,  as  a  rule,  were  not  long  enough  to  mature  it.  Now 
almost  every  county  in  the  state  has  its  corn  king  who  raises 
more  corn  per  acre  than  the  average  yield  of  the  Corn   Belt. 

^See  Addenda. 


New  Hampshire,  according  to  the  Census,  produced  in  1910 
46  bushels  of  corn  to  IlHnois'  39  bushels  per  acre,  and  Iowa's 
37  bushels. 

Thirty  years  ago  they  came  near  giving  up  the  growing  of 
wheat  in  the  Genesee  Valley  in  New  York,  because  of  the  ravages 
of  the  Hessian  fly.  Someone  tried  commercial  fertilizer  and 
found  it  hastened  the  growth  of  the  wheat  plant  so  that  it  got 
ahead  of  the  fly  and  for  years  the  wheat  industry  in  the  Genesee 
Valley  was  preserved.  Now  commercial  manures  are  used  ex- 
tensively in  that  valley  on  every  variety  of  crop. 

Sole  Source  of  Fertility 

In  the  East,  from  the  use  of  fertilizers  for  a  particular  purpose 
on  a  particular  crop,  their  use  has  extended  to  all  crops  and  in 
many  cases  they  have  become  the  sole  source  of  applied  fertility. 
Take  for  example  the  potato  crop.  It  was  discovered  that  better 
potatoes  could  be  grown  on  fertilizers  than  on  stable  manure  and 
the  result  is  that  in  Aroostook  County,  Maine,  more  than  25,000,- 
000  bushels  of  potatoes  are  grown  exclusively  on  high  grade  com- 
mercial fertilizer.  They  are  producing  in  that  county  300  bushels 
per  acre  against  92  in  the  Middle  West.  The  county  reminds 
one  of  Iowa.  Much  of  the  land  is  recently  cleared  and  all  the 
soil  is  naturally  fertile  ;  but  they  find  it  pays  to  make  it  still 
more  fertile  by  the  liberal  use  of  fertilizers.  It  is  conservatively 
estimated  that  60,000  tons  are  used  each  year  in  this  one 
county.  The  bankers  in  Aroostook  County  will  tell  you  that  fer- 
tilizers have  put  that  county  on  the  map  commercially  as  well  as 
agriculturally. 

A  still  better  illustration  is  the  cotton  crop  of  the  South.  Any 
banker  or  railroad  man  will  tell  you  that  the  South  is  absolutely 
dependent  on  the  fertilizer  industry  to  grow  the  cotton  crop.  It 
is  true  that  they  are  not  producing  as  much  cotton  per  acre  as 
they  ought  to  produce  and  will  produce  with  improved  seed, 
crop  rotation,  and  better  methods  of  cultivation.  It  is  also 
true  that  they  are  not  producing  in  the  South  as  much  corn  per 
acre  as  is  being  produced  in  Illinois  and  in  New  England,  and  we 
in  New  England  are  profitably  producing  on  our  so-called  "ex- 
hausted farms"  by  the  use  of  fertilizers,  almost  50%  more  per 
acre  than  is  being  produced  in  the  Corn  Belt,  or  45.5  bushels  in 
New  England  to  32.8  bushels  in  the  Corn  Belt. 

But  the  South  will  never  produce  corn  so  long  as  it  can  produce 
cash  crops  such  as  cotton,  sugar,  rice,  and  citrus  fruits.  And  you 
in  the  Middle  West  ought  to  be  thankful  that  it  will  not.     It  is 

10 


your  place  to  grow  the  corn,  the  cattle,  the  wheat,  and  the  oats, 
which  the  South  cannot  so  well  produce.  Let  each  latitude  grow 
the  crops  naturally  adapted  to  it  and  in  the  end  it  will  make  for 
better  conditions  the  country  over. 

Some  Jolts  and  Some  Boosts 

New  England  has  prided  herself  upon  being  advanced,  but 
recently  she  has  been  jolted  out  of  her  complacency,  the  last 
severe  jolt  being  the  collapse  of  her  railway  systems.  She  has 
waked  up  to  find  that  Chicago  is  competing  with  her  in  music 
and  art,  Indiana  in  literature,  and  Wisconsin  in  progressive  legis- 
lation, while  the  Middle  West  is  sending  men  to  reorganize  her 
railroads.  The  Middle  West  claimed  for  years,  and  justly  so, 
that  agriculturally  it  Avas  the  richest  section  in  the  country,  but 
the  last  Census  gave  her  also  a  bad  jolt.  It  showed  that  she  was 
falling  behind  in  agricultural  production,  and  in  the  number  of 
resident  farm  owners.  Viewed  from  the  outside  it  would  appear 
that  the  two  most  important  questions  in  the  Middle  West  are, 
how  to  increase  production  and  how  to  deal  with  the  tenant 
farmer. 

A  Boost,— J.  J.  Hill's  Experiments 

James  J.  Hill  has  conducted  some  wonder-working  experi- 
ments with  fertilizers,  which  have  not  received  the  attention  they 
deserved  in  the  West.  Is  it  because  the  West  does  not  want  to 
admit  that  it  needs  rejuvenation,  or  is  it  because  she  is  complacent? 
Hill  showed  in  one  season,  by  the  use  of  fertilizers,  that  he  could 
double  the  yield  of  cereals  in  the  Middle  Northwest.  It  matters 
not  at  this  time  whether  it  was  done  at  a  profit.  The  important 
thing  is  to  demonstrate  that  yields  can  be  doubled  by  a  certain 
treatment.  Thirty-six  years  ago  Bell  demonstrated  that  he 
could  talk  over  a  wire  from  one  room  to  another.  Today  we 
know  the  result.  The  fertilizer  industry  has  nothing  to  fear 
from  such  experiments  as  Hill's,  even  if  all  of  them  are  not  at  first 
commercially  successful.  It  has  nothing  to  fear  from  any  ex- 
periments provided  they  are  carried  on  without  bias  and  by  men 
who  have  no  hobby  to  ride. 

Will  it  Pay?    No  Longer  an  Academic  Question 

The  value  of  commercial  plant  food  has  passed  beyond  the  ex- 
perimental stage  in  Europe  and  in  the  eastern  part  of  this 
country.     Why  not  accept  the  testimony  of  seventy-five  years 

11 


at  Rohamsted,  of  fifty  years  at  Halle,  and  of  thirty  years  in 
Georgia  and  in  Maine.  I  sometimes  wonder  if  the  agricultural 
teachers  and  writers  in  the  West  are  not  standing  in  the  way  of 
agricultural  progress  by  still  considering  as  an  academic  ques- 
tion the  value  and  need  of  fertilizers.  The  question  is  not  — 
Are  commercial  fertilizers  good  and  useful  ?  —  hut  will  it  pay  to 
use  them  as  James  J.  Hill  has  done  in  his  part  of  the  country. 
To  my  mind,  Mr.  Hill  has  answered  the  question,  "will  it  pay?" 
in  the  affirmative.  By  the  use  of  a  little  over  $5  worth  of  fer- 
tilizer per  acre  he  practically  doubled  the  yield  of  wheat,  oats 
and  barley,  and  you  can  figure  whether  it  paid  or  not.  I  wish 
that  other  railway  officials  might  follow  his  splendid  example. 

The  Hill  experiments  are  along  the  lines  of  intensive  agricul- 
ture. The  fertilizer  industry  stands  for  intensive  agriculture, 
which  includes  good  seed,  thorough  cultivation,  rotation  of  crops, 
cover  crops,  and  the  plowing  in  of  green  crops  wherever  it  is 
necessary  to  keep  up  the  humus  of  the  soil.  Its  best  fields  are 
where  the  best  agricultural  practice  is  in  vogue. 


The  Industry  vs.  Criticism 

The  industry  knows  its  own  shortcomings  and  it  is  not  unmind- 
ful of  the  benefits  of  criticism,  but  in  the  face  of  criticism  and 
opposition  it  has  grown  in  the  last  forty  years  from  half  a  million 
to  nearly  7,000,000  tons.  In  the  last  five  year  Census  period 
the  use  of  complete  fertilizer  increased  104  per  cent. 

Criticism  and  ridicule  which  retards  the  day  of  the  introduc- 
tion and  use  of  commercial  plant  foods  in  the  Middle  West  serves 
no  economic  purpose.  It  is  as  shortsighted  as  it  is  unsound.  In 
Europe,  government- paid  officials  and  teachers  who  are  unfair 
to  legitimate  industry  are  the  exception.  State  and  Federal  paid 
teachers  who  call  fertilizers  "soil  stimulants,"  and  "patent  soil 
medicines,"  who  imply  that  they  are  composed  of  "fillers,"  and 
who  deliberately  exaggerate  the  profits  of  the  industry  to  dis- 
courage their  use,  are  not  fair,  to  say  the  least.  They  neither 
serve  the  true  interests  of  agriculture  nor  promote  the  welfare  of 
the  Nation  which  employs  them. 

It  would  seem  that  an  industry  which  has  stood  the  test  of 
three-quarters  of  a  century,  that  conserves  every  pound  of  plant 
food  it  can  find,  that  delves  in  the  earth  and  taps  the  air  in 
order  that  more  abundant  and  cheaper  fertility  may  be  supplied, 
is  an  industry  that  is  quite  worth  while. 


12 


ADDENDA 

SOME  JOLTS  AND  SOME  BOOSTS 
Taken  from  the  Census  and  from  Experiments 

According  to  1910  Census  Bulletin  "Agriculture,"  page  18: 

The  average  yield  of  Corn  in  New  England  increased  from  39.4  bu.  per 
acre  to  45.2  bu.  or  nearly  15% 

In  Illinois  the  yield  stood  still  at  38.8  bu. 

In  Iowa  it  dropped  from  39.1  bu.  to  37.1  bu.  or  5%. 

In  Kansas  it  dropped  from  27.8  bu.  to  19.1  bu.  or  31%. 

In  Nebraska  it  dropped  from  28.8  bu.  to  24.8  bu.  or  nearly  14%. 

In  Missouri  it  dropped  from  28.1  bu.  to  26.9  bu.  or  4%. 

It  is  suggested  that  better  seed,  better  cultivation  and  added  fertility  from 
some  source  would  improve  conditions,  as  the  same  things  have  done  in  New 
England  and  in  Old  England. 


JAMES/.  HILL'S 
Wonder  Wording  Experiments  with  Fertilizers 

(Condensed  from  World's  Work,  April,  1913) 

In  one  year  Mr.  Hill  demonstrated  in  the  middle  North  West  that  he  could 
practically  double  the  yield  of  wheat,  barley  and  oats  by  the  use  of  fertilizers. 
The  experiment  was  tried  on  five-acre  plats  on  151  farms  (755  acres  in  all) 
scattered  along  the  Great  Northern  route  in  Minnesota  and  North  Dakota, 
the  most  extensive  practical  experiment  the  world  has  ever  seen,  as  follows: 

Average  of  the  Great  Northern  U.  S.  Census  Average  of  Minnesota  Increase 

Plats  With   Fertilizer  and  No.  Dakota  without  Fertilizer 

Wheat    30  bu.  per  acre  Wheat     15.8  bu.  per  acre                      14.2 

Barley    47 Barley    21.9    "      "      "  25.1 

Oats        71 '  Oats       31.       40. 

The  grain  in  each  case  from  the  fertilizer  plats  was  much  superior  in  quality 
and  brought  a  higher  price.  Each  acre  received  $5.39  worth  of  fertilizer.  It 
can  easily  be  calculated  whether  the  increased  yield  paid  or  not.  It  is  the 
experience  the  world  over  where  commercial  plant  foods  are  used  intelli- 
gently, that  not  only  are  larger  yields  of  better  quality  obtained,  but  the  land 
steadily  increases  in  productiveness. 

13 


WHEAT  EXPERIMENTS 
In  England,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  Illinois 


Dr.  Cyril  G.  Hopkins  of  the  University  of  Illinois  gives  the  following  statis- 
tics in  "Science,"  October  3,  1913: 

England  —  As  an  average  of  60  years  where  wheat  has  been  grown  yea  r 
after  year  on  the  same  land  at  Rothamsted: 

Unfertilized  Land  produced  12 .6  bu.  per  acre 

Farm  Manure  produced  35.4    "      "      " 

Commercial  Plant  Food  produced  37.       "      "      " 

Pennsylvania  —  As  an  average  of  24  years  the  wheat  yields  at  Pennsylvania 
State  College,  when  grown  in  a  four-year  rotation,  varied  as  follows: 
Unfertilized  Land  produced  10. 1  bu.  per  acre 

Farm  Manure  produced  24.1    "      "      " 

Commercial  Plant  Food  produced  24.8    "      "      " 

Ohio  —  As  an  average  of  19  years  the  wheat  yield  at  the  Ohio  Experiment 
Station,  the  wheat  being  grown  in  a  five-year  rotation  with  clover,  timothy, 
corn  and  oats  on  five  different  series  of  plots,  so  that  every  crop  might  be 
represented  every  year. 

Unfertilized  Land  produced  10.2  bu.  per  acre 

Farm  Manure  produced  21.7    "      "      " 

Commercial  Plant  Food  produced  26.9    "      "      " 

Illinois  —  On  five  Experiment  fields  of  the  University  of  Illinois,  located  in 
different  parts  of  the  state  the  following  results  with  wheat  are  given  for  1913. 
Unfertilized  average  of  the  5  fields  13. 1  bu.  per  acre 

Fertilized  with  Organic  Manures,  Lime- 
stone, Phosphorus  and  Potassium, 
average  of  5  fields  32.3 


Average  increase 


19.2 


NEW  ENGLAND  AND  THE  MIDDLE  WEST 
COMPARED 


The  following  figures  are  based  on  the  U.  S.  Census 


New  England,  using  $1.30  worth  of  fertilizer 
per  acre  of  improved  land,  produces 

The  Middle  West  States,  using  4  cents  worth 
of  fertilizer  per  acre  of  improved  land,  pro- 
duce 

Maine,  using  $1.72  worth  of  fertilizer  per 
acre  of  improved  land,  produces 


Corn 
(Av.  Bu.) 
per  acre 

45. 


33, 


43, 


Wheat 
(Av.  Bu.) 
per  acre 

24. 


17. 


25. 


Potatoes 
(Av.  Bu.) 
per  acre 

177. 


92. 
210. 


ill 


iip    iiii 


'!? 


5  li 


hi 


mn\i\ 


iiimim 


m 


■v:.  i 


!  !    I 


mn 


4 
m 


('  Ml 

! 


iiiii 


iliiillillii 


liiimiim 


!!.  )  I  i 


!i!il! 


iiii 


;     i 


m 


m 


If 


! 


ill 


iM'iin;!''? 


*:('.:,( 


(    '»■ 


''! 


Hliiiiil 


m 


(''t!(f 


!iiliH;;f 


lihl, 


